Cultural Heritage Management Plan 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria Residential Subdivision Plan number: 17142
SPONSOR: BTH Pty Ltd (ABN 90 162 121 637) HERITAGE ADVISOR: Annette Xiberras AUTHOR: Edward East DATE: 06/11/2020 Title Page Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria Residential Subdivision Plan number: 17142
Activity size: Medium Assessment: Complex Sponsor: BTH Pty Ltd (ABN 90 162 121 637) Heritage advisor: Annette Xiberras Author: Edward East Date: 06/11/2020 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Activity Area: None.
Front page photo shows south east facing view of excavations close to south border of activity area (photo: Edward East 11/06/2020).
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following people and organisations for assisting with the development of this Cultural Heritage Management Plan: BTH PTY LTD Andrew Austen. Myers Planning Group Dan Perch Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation Craig Black Edwards Stephen Chatfield Jryran Chatfield Hayden Harradine Mundara Clark
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page ii © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page iii © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 Executive Summary
Compliance requirements are set out in Part 1 of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan. This cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) has been prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) and as required by the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic). Location of the Activity Area The activity area is located at 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. The activity area is located approximately 257 km south-west of Melbourne CBD. The activity area is bordered to the north by Bridge Road, to the west and east and south by agricultural paddocks. The activity area is located within the LGA Warrnambool City Council (Map 1). The activity area is 202,424m2 in area (Maps 1 and 2) and is currently zoned as Low-Density Residential Zone and as Rural Living Zone (RLZ) as per the Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme. The Sponsor The Sponsor of the CHMP is BTH Pty Ltd (ABN 90 162 121 637). The Sponsors representative is Andrew Austen. The Activity The Sponsor intends to construct a residential housing subdivision at 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. The Assessment Undertaken & Results The methodology was developed to meet the requirements for a CHMP. This comprised:
• A desktop assessment, which involved: research and analysis of the known Aboriginal archaeology of the region and local setting; a description of the ethno-history applicable to the activity area; a description of the environment, geology and geomorphology of the activity area and its surrounding landscape; and a review of the land use history of the activity area, and implications for the cultural heritage sensitivity of the activity area.
• standard assessment of the activity area, which comprised a pedestrian survey of the activity area. No new surface Aboriginal cultural material as located.
• A complex assessment of the activity area, which comprised the excavation of four 1 x 1 m stratigraphic test pits (TP), twenty four 50 x 50 cm shovel test pits (STPs), and nine 2x1m machine test pits (MPs). No subsurface Aboriginal cultural material was located.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page iv © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Contents
Title Page ii Executive Summary ...... iv Contents ...... v List of Maps ...... vii List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... vii List of Plates ...... viii Part 1: Cultural Heritage Management Conditions ...... 1 1 Cultural Heritage Management Conditions ...... 2 1.1 Management Condition 1: Cultural Heritage Management Plan to be available onsite ...... 2 1.2 Management Condition 1: All works undertaken as part of the activity must stay within the activity area . 2 2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Contingencies ...... 3 2.1 Approval Required for Changes to the Proposed Activity ...... 3 2.2 Protocol for handling sensitive information ...... 3 2.3 Communication ...... 3 2.4 Unexpected Discovery of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Material ...... 4 2.5 Management of Aboriginal cultural heritage material ...... 5 2.6 Notification in accordance with the Act of the Discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage material ...... 5 2.7 Unexpected Discovery of Human Remains ...... 5 2.8 Resolution of any disputes between the Sponsor and the RAP in relation to the implementation of the management plan or the conduct of the activity ...... 6 2.9 Reviewing compliance with the Management Plan and mechanisms for remedying non-compliance ...... 8 2.10 Non-Compliance with Management Conditions and Contingency Plans ...... 9 2.11 Limited Interim Retention of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage by Heritage Advisor ...... 9 2.12 Assignment of Custody of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ...... 9 2.13 Use of the activity area lot...... 10 Part 2: Assessment ...... 11 3 Introduction ...... 12 3.1 Background ...... 12 3.2 Name of Sponsor ...... 12 3.3 Name of Owner and Occupier of the Activity Area ...... 12 3.4 Location of the Activity Area ...... 12 3.5 Reason for Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan ...... 12 3.6 Notice of Intent to Prepare the Cultural Heritage Management Plan ...... 13
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page v © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
3.7 Registered Aboriginal Party Responsible for the Activity Area ...... 13 3.8 Aims of the Assessment ...... 13 3.9 Personnel Involved ...... 13 3.10 Report Submission ...... 15 4 Activity Description ...... 16 5 Extent of the Activity Area ...... 17 6 Documentation of Consultation ...... 22 6.1 Consultation in Relation to the Assessment ...... 22 6.2 Participation in the Conduct of the Assessment ...... 22 6.3 Consultation in Relation to the Conditions ...... 23 6.4 Summary of the Outcomes of Consultation ...... 23 7 Desktop Assessment ...... 24 7.1 The Geographic Region ...... 24 7.2 Climate ...... 24 7.3 Native Vegetation and Fauna ...... 26 7.4 Historical and Ethno-Historical Accounts in the Geographic Region ...... 30 7.5 Land Use History of the Geographic Region ...... 33 7.6 Land use History of the Activity Area ...... 33 7.7 Aboriginal Places in the Geographic Region ...... 40 7.8 Previous Studies in the Geographic Region ...... 42 7.9 Conclusions from the Desktop Assessment ...... 45 8 Standard Assessment ...... 46 8.1 Introduction ...... 46 8.2 Aims of the Standard Assessment ...... 46 8.3 Methodology of the Standard Assessment ...... 46 8.4 Ground Surface Visibility and Exposure ...... 46 8.5 Standard Assessment Results ...... 47 8.6 Standard Assessment Conclusions ...... 48 9 Complex Assessment ...... 54 9.1 Aims of the Complex Assessment ...... 54 9.2 Methodology of the Complex Assessment ...... 54 9.3 Complex Assessment Results ...... 68 9.4 Complex Assessment Conclusions ...... 69 10 Details of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Activity Area ...... 71 11 Consideration of s.61 Matters ...... 72 1.1 Can Harm to Identified Cultural Heritage Places be Avoided? ...... 72
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page vi © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
1.2 Can Harm to Identified Cultural Heritage Places be Minimised? ...... 72 1.3 Are Specific Measures Needed for the Management of Identified Cultural Heritage Places? ...... 72 1.4 Are There Particular Contingency Plans That Might be Necessary? ...... 72 1.5 What Custody and Management Arrangements Might be Needed? ...... 72 12 References ...... 73 Appendix 1: Notice of Intent ...... 76 Appendix 2: RAP Notice to Decline to Evaluate ...... 78 Appendix 3: Glossary ...... 79 Appendix 4: Relevant Planning Schemes ...... 82
List of Maps Map 1: Location of the activity area...... 18 Map 2: Current ground conditions and extent of the activity area (Google Earth 09/06/2020)...... 19 Map 3: Development plan of the activity area...... 20 Map 4: Geology across the geographic region...... 27 Map 5: Geomorphology of the activity area...... 28 Map 6: 1750 EVC categories across the geographic region...... 29 Map 7: 1947 activity area ground conditions (Landata 2020)...... 36 Map 8: 1968 activity area ground conditions (Landata 2020)...... 37 Map 9: 1978 activity area ground conditions (Landata 2020)...... 38 Map 10: 2001 activity area ground conditions (Google Earth 2020)...... 39 Map 11: Standard assessment results...... 53 Map 12: Complex assessment results...... 70
List of Figures Figure 1: Pedestrian footpath to be constructed in reserve area on south side of Bridge Road...... 21 Figure 2: Tarmacked access road and pedestrian crossing to be constructed in road reserve area on south side of Bridge Road...... 21 Figure 1: Dhauwurd Wurrung Language Boundary and Clans (Clark 1990: 54)...... 31 Figure 4: TP 1x1m A stratigraphic profile at excavation conclusion. A sondage was excavated into sterile deposit of clay in SE pit corner to further establish activity area geomorphology...... 58 Figure 5: STP 50x50cm 22 stratigraphic profile at excavation conclusion...... 64 Figure 6: MP 2x1m A stratigraphic profile at excavation conclusion...... 68
List of Tables Table 1: CHMP 17142 Compliance Checklist...... 8 Table 2: Cadastral information...... 17 Table 3: Consultation in relation to the assessment...... 22 Table 4: Consultation in relation to the conditions...... 23 Table 5: Historic aerial analysis...... 34 Table 6: Previously recorded VAHR places within the geographic region...... 40 Table 7: Summary of the VAHR places within the geographic region...... 41 Table 8: Effective survey coverage of the activity area...... 47 Table 9: Location and description of all 1x1 meter stratigraphic test pits...... 57 Table 10: Location and description of the 50 x 50 cm shovel test pits...... 61 Table 11: Location and description of the 2 x 1 meter machine test pits...... 67
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page vii © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 List of Plates Plate 1: North view from centre of the activity area showing gentle south running hill slope landform (Mark Grist 23/03/20). 50 Plate 2: West view from south east corner of north paddock, dam visible in distance (Mark Grist 23/03/20)...... 50 Plate 3: West view of agricultural infrastucure located on central west border of activity area (Mark Grist 23/03/20)...... 50 Plate 4: East view of dam located in south east corner of north paddock (Mark Grist 23/03/20)...... 50 Plate 5: South view of activity area southern border (Mark Grist 23/03/20)...... 51 Plate 6: South facing view from activity area north border showing gentle south running hill slope landform (Mark Grist 23/03/20)...... 51 Plate 7:North view of partly demolished residential dwelling (Mark Grist 23/03/20)...... 51 Plate 8: South view of agricultural fence running across centre of activity area (Mark Grist 23/03/20)...... 51 Plate 9: East view of road reserve of Bridge Road in north west of activity area, note Telstra infrastructure (Edward East 17/09/20)...... 52 Plate 10: East view of road reserve of Bridge Road in north west of activity area, note drainage infrastructure (Edward East 17/09/20)...... 52 Plate 11: West view of road reserve of Bridge Road in north east of activity area (Edward East 17/09/20)...... 52 Plate 12: West view of road reserve of Bridge Road in north east of activity area (Edward East 17/09/20)...... 52 Plate 13: South view of TP 1x1 A prior to excavation (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 56 Plate 14: South view of TP 1x1m B at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 56 Plate 15: South view of TP 1x1m A at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 56 Plate 16: South view of TP 1x1m C at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 56 Plate 17: South east west view of TP 1x1 D at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 17/09/2020)...... 57 Plate 18: South view of TP 1x1 D at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 17/09/2020)...... 57 Plate 19: South west view of STP transect program in centre of activity area (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 59 Plate 20: South view of STP 2 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 59 Plate 21: South view of STP 10 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 60 Plate 22: South view of STP 15 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 60 Plate 23: North view of STP 12 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 60 Plate 24: South view of STP 22 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020) ...... 60 Plate 25: South view of STP 23 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 17/09/2020)...... 61 Plate 26: East view of STP 24 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 17/06/2020 ...... 61 Plate 27: North facing view of MP 2x1m A at excavation conclusion ((Photo: Edward East 11/06/2020)...... 65 Plate 28: South view of MP 2x1m A at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 11/06/2020)...... 65 Plate 29: North facing view of MP D at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)...... 66 Plate 30: South view of STP 15 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 11/06/2020)...... 66 Plate 31:East view of excavation of MP G (Photo: Edward East 12/06/2020)...... 66 Plate 32: South view of MP G at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 12/06/2020)...... 66
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page viii © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Part 1: Cultural Heritage Management Conditions
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 1 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
1 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS These Management Conditions become compliance requirements once the CHMP is approved. Failure to comply with a condition is an offence under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Victoria).
1.1 Management Condition 1: Cultural Heritage Management Plan to be available onsite A hard copy of this approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan (management plan) must be held onsite at all times within the on-site construction office or with the site manager if an office is not provided, where it will remain readily available to all construction staff.
1.2 Management Condition 1: All works undertaken as part of the activity must stay within the activity area
Any works associated with the current activity, a housing subdivision, must only be undertaken within the prescribed activity area covered by CHMP 17142 (Map 2). No works associated with the current activity are permitted to occur outside the current activity area.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 2 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 2 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT CONTINGENCIES
Below are listed contingencies for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be required during the proposed activity. These matters are reactive measures that must be evoked if/when particular circumstances arise. 2.1 Approval Required for Changes to the Proposed Activity Should any changes be necessary to the activity in terms of the nature and extent that the ground is to be affected, the Sponsor must obtain statutory approval and may be required to submit a new CHMP as per the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. However, it should be noted that amendments to this CHMP can be sought, as per s.45A of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Regulation 69 and Schedule 3 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. Contingency.
2.2 Protocol for handling sensitive information
Before, during and after the activity with the exception of publicly available information, there shall be no communication or public release of information concerning Aboriginal cultural heritage without the written permission of the RAP. No onsite photographs or information concerning Aboriginal cultural heritage is to be circulated to the media or via social media without the written permission of the RAP. Contingency.
2.3 Communication
Before, during and after the activity the Sponsor and/or Sponsors Delegate and Site Supervisor and any relevant personnel involved with supervision of works for the activity must read Part I of the approved CHMP and be aware of the legal conditions and contingency plans concerning Aboriginal cultural heritage within the activity area. The Sponsor and Site Supervisor or other relevant personnel must be responsible for implementing any conditions contained within the CHMP. Where possible, the Sponsor and the Registered Aboriginal Party shall ensure that all communication and correspondence is responded to within ten working days. The Sponsor must notify the RAP when the activity is to commence, no less than 1 week prior to commencing. The Sponsor must also notify the RAP when the activity has been completed. Contingency. Contact details for the Sponsor Delegate and the RAP are as follows: Sponsors Delegate: Dan Pech, Senior Planning Consultant, Myers Planning Group Phone: 0436 016 612 Email: [email protected] RAP: Craig Edwards, Cultural Heritage and NRM Manager, Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation Phone: 0475 310 509 Email: [email protected]
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 3 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 2.4 Unexpected Discovery of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Material
The Sponsor must at all times avoid unlawful harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage. The following steps must be taken by the Sponsor as a minimum if suspected previously unrecorded Aboriginal cultural heritage material is identified during the activity: 1. All works must cease and temporary safety webbing or fencing erected without ground disturbance at a distance of 10 metres (buffer zone) around the location of the suspected Aboriginal cultural heritage, with signage displayed clearly identifying the location as a ‘No- Go-Zone’. The suspected Aboriginal cultural heritage must not be removed. Work may continue in other parts of the Activity Area outside of the buffer zone. 2. A suitably qualified Heritage Advisor and the RAP must be notified of the discovery by the Sponsor or site supervisor within two working days. 3. A Heritage Advisor and a RAP representative must inspect the reported discovery as soon as possible to determine if it is Aboriginal cultural heritage. If the reported discovery is determined not to be Aboriginal cultural heritage by the Heritage Advisor and the RAP representative, the activity may recommence. 4. If the reported discovery is confirmed to be Aboriginal cultural heritage by the Heritage Advisor and the RAP representative, a decision or condition as to the management of the Aboriginal cultural heritage must be made within three working days by the Heritage Advisor in consultation with the Sponsor and RAP representative. 5. S.61 matters relating to harm avoidance or minimisation measures must be explored by the Heritage Advisor in consultation with the RAP and the Sponsor. If agreement is not reached between the RAP and the Sponsor in regard to the management and protection of the Aboriginal cultural heritage, this will be classed as a dispute. The procedure for resolution of any disputes between the Sponsor and the RAP in relation to the implementation of the CHMP or the conduct of the activity must be followed. 6. If harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage cannot be avoided, then a program of salvage must be conducted by a suitably experienced and qualified archaeologist prior to the activity proceeding, with the following conditions: a) The methodology and extent of any salvage excavation must be agreed to by the RAP. b) The RAP must be invited to participate in the salvage program. c) Any archaeological salvage collection, excavation, or sub-surface testing must be: i. culturally appropriate, ii. using standard archaeological equipment including a GPS unit to record position and extent of Aboriginal cultural heritage, and archaeological excavations, iii. consider the significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in relation to the known archaeological and cultural heritage significance of existing sites in the region surrounding the Activity Area, and carried out in accordance with best archaeological practice, AV guidelines and standards. 7. An archaeological report detailing the methodology, analyses, interpretation, and results of any archaeological recovery, testing and dating must be prepared and provided to the Sponsor, the RAP and AV. 8. Agreement as to the process to be followed to manage the Aboriginal cultural heritage and how to proceed with activity must be made within a period not exceeding five working days by RAP, the Heritage Advisor and the Sponsor.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 4 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 9. AV must be notified by the Heritage Advisor of the discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage through the submission of the appropriate Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Registry forms and (if applicable) a salvage excavation report. 10. The RAP may notify the Heritage Advisor, who may then advise the Sponsor or the Site Supervisor when any suspended activity works can proceed. In general, the activity may recommence: a) When the appropriate management and protective measures have been taken; b) Where the relevant Aboriginal cultural heritage records have been updated and/or completed; c) Where all parties agree there is no prudent or feasible course of action; or d) Upon reaching resolution of a dispute. The Heritage Advisor, the Sponsor and the RAP must ensure that the above steps are followed, and that legal obligations and conditions are complied with at all times.
2.5 Management of Aboriginal cultural heritage material
It is the responsibility of the Heritage Advisor to ensure that all Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered from the activity area is fully documented, catalogued, bagged, and labelled (with details, reference to provenance and project), packaged and securely stored with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. The Aboriginal Victoria (AV) must be advised of this through completion and submission of relevant Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register forms to the Heritage Registrar, AV, by the Heritage Advisor. Once any scientific analysis of any cultural heritage has been completed, the Aboriginal objects and cultural heritage material recovered from the assessment, implementation, salvage, and activity phases must be returned to the RAP within six (6) months of the completion of the activity. The RAP must be the custodian of this material and may choose to rebury it in the activity area. If the RAP chooses to rebury the Aboriginal cultural heritage it must be done in accordance with the RAP’s procedure for the Reburial of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
2.6 Notification in accordance with the Act of the Discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage material
Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Regulations requires that the CHMP contains a contingency plan for the notification, in accordance with the Act, of the discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage during the carrying out of the activity. In accordance with Section 24 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 ‘Reporting discovery of Aboriginal places and objects’, if a person discovers an Aboriginal place or object; and the person knows that the place or object is an Aboriginal place or object the person must report the discovery to the Secretary as soon as practicable unless, at the time of making the discovery, the person had reasonable cause to believe that the Register contained a record of the place or object. If a discovery of an Aboriginal place or object is made in the course of works being carried out on any land, the person in charge of the works is deemed for the purposes of Section 24 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 to be the person who discovered the place or object.
2.7 Unexpected Discovery of Human Remains
If any suspected human remains are found during any activity, works must cease. The Victorian Police and the State Coroner’s Office should be notified immediately. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 5 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 suspected human remains are Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, the Coronial Admissions and Enquiries must be contacted on 1300 888 544. Any such discovery at the activity area must follow these steps: 1. Discovery: a) If suspected human remains are discovered, all activity in the vicinity must stop; and, b) The remains must be left in place and protected from harm or damage. 2. Notification: a) Once suspected human skeletal remains have been found, the Coroner’s Office and the b) Victoria Police must be notified immediately. c) If there is reasonable grounds to believe the remains are Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, the Coronial Admissions and Enquiries hotline must be immediately notified on 1300 888 544; and d) All details of the location and nature of the human remains must be provided to the relevant authorities. e) If it is confirmed by these authorities the discovered remains are Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, the person responsible for the activity must report the existence of them to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (the Council) in accordance with section 17 of the Act. f) Do not contact the media. g) Do not take any photographs of human remains without the express request of the h) Coroner’s Office, Victoria Police or AV. i) Do not circulate information or photographs via social media. 3. Impact Mitigation or Salvage: a) The Council, after taking reasonable steps to consult with any Aboriginal person or body with an interest in the Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, will determine the appropriate course of actions required by section18(2)(b) of the Act; b) An appropriate impact mitigation or salvage strategy as determined by the Council must be implemented by the Sponsor. 4. Curation and further analysis: a) The treatment of salvaged Aboriginal Ancestral Remains must be in accordance with the direction of the Council. 5. Reburial: a) Any reburial site(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to AV. b) Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure the remains are not disturbed in the future.
2.8 Resolution of any disputes between the Sponsor and the RAP in relation to the implementation of the management plan or the conduct of the activity
Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Regulations requires that the CHMP must contain a contingency plan for the resolution of any disputes between the Sponsor and relevant RAP in relation to the implementation of an approved CHMP or the conduct of the activity.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 6 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 Disputes may arise at various stages of the activity. Procedures for dispute resolution aim to ensure that all parties are fully aware of their rights and obligations, that full and open communication between parties occurs and that those parties conduct themselves in good faith. If a dispute arises that may affect the conduct of the activity, resolution between parties using the following dispute resolution procedure is recommended: 1. All disputes will be jointly investigated and documented by both the RAP and the Sponsor. 2. Where a breach of the CHMP conditions is identified, the RAP and the Sponsor will agree to a suitably appropriate corrective method to remedy the breach by organising a meeting to attempt to resolve the dispute. 3. The issue/s in dispute must be clearly understood and stated by the authorised representatives of the RAP and Sponsor at the meeting. 4. If sought and agreed to by the RAP and Sponsor, third party mediation may be held during the meeting. 5. Any correction or remedial activities required must be: a) recorded in writing and signed off by the authorised representatives of the RAP and Sponsor, b) supervised by an authorised RAP representative, and c) occur in accordance with the RAP representative’s instructions. 6. The Sponsor, site supervisor, contractor and any relevant personnel will not undertake any such correction or remedial activities without receiving the written consent of the RAP. 7. The dispute resolution must be recorded in writing and signed by both parties. 8. The RAP will strive to minimise delays to work schedules while not compromising Aboriginal cultural heritage, places, or values. 9. Issues directly related to cultural heritage management will be handled through the following dispute resolution mechanism: a) Authorised representatives of the RAP and the Sponsor will attempt to negotiate a resolution to any dispute related to the cultural heritage management of the Activity Area within two working days of a notice being received that a dispute between the parties is deemed to exist. b) If the authorised representatives of the parties do not reach agreement, alternative representatives of both parties will meet to negotiate a resolution to an agreed schedule. The dispute resolution process does not preclude any legal recourse open to the parties being taken but the parties agree the above resolution mechanism will be implemented before such recourse is made. For dispute resolution, the following persons will represent the parties: Sponsors Delegate: Dan Pech, Senior Planning Consultant, Myers Planning Group Phone: 0436 016 612 Email: [email protected] RAP: Craig Edwards, Cultural Heritage and NRM Manager, Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation Phone: 0475 310 509 Email: [email protected]
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 7 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 Any change in personnel appointed as authorised representatives in one party will be notified promptly to all parties.
2.9 Reviewing compliance with the Management Plan and mechanisms for remedying non-compliance
In order to ensure that there is compliance with the CHMP, a compliance checklist must be developed by the Heritage Advisor for use by the Sponsor (Table 1). The compliance checklist includes those matters addressed in the CHMP with which the Sponsor must comply. The compliance checklist should be used as a reference in the event that compliance with the plan is questioned. It is possible that cultural heritage material may be uncovered during the proposed works. In order to inform the Sponsor of their legal responsibilities regarding cultural heritage management, specific legislative requirements are provided below. In addition, a checklist referring to matters that must be complied with under the CHMP is included below (Table 1). The Sponsor or nominated Sponsors Delegate is responsible for remedying non-compliance with this CHMP. In the event that the conditions or contingencies set out in this CHMP are not adhered to, all works must cease, and the RAP contacted immediately. A record of the breach must be documented, and immediate action taken to remedy the breach, under the direction of the RAP. The record of the breach must include the reasons for non- compliance. The Sponsor or nominated Sponsors Delegate must take immediate action to remedy non- compliance in accordance with the relevant condition or contingency. All acts of non-compliance must be reported to both the RAP and AV, which may result in an investigation by an Authorised Officer or Aboriginal Heritage Officer. A record of CHMP compliance must also be maintained by the Sponsor or nominated Sponsors Delegate at all times and must be available for inspection by either an Authorised Officer or Aboriginal Heritage Officer under the Act or any other representative of the RAP or the Secretary.
Table 1: CHMP 17142 Compliance Checklist.
Compliance Checklist Check Box
a) Has an approved copy of this CHMP been kept on site for reference?
b) Have any changes to the activity or the activity area occurred? If so, preparation of a new CHMP may be needed. c) Have all relevant peoples been informed of the: d) Presence of this CHMP e) Purpose of this CHMP f) Appropriate response to discovery of cultural heritage/human remains g) Results of non-compliance with this CHMP
h) Have measures been followed to ensure that if cultural heritage material is uncovered, it is identified?
i) Have compliance inspections been undertaken at least at the appropriate intervals?
j) If cultural heritage is discovered, has construction been stopped in immediate vicinity (within 10m)?
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 8 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 k) If cultural heritage is discovered, has a heritage advisor been contacted?
l) If cultural heritage is discovered, has it been recorded by a heritage advisor, AV notified, and records submitted to the VAHR?
m) If in situ cultural heritage is discovered, has salvage been undertaken by an appropriately qualified archaeologist (e.g. the heritage advisor)? n) If skeletal remains are discovered, has the State Coroner’s Office - 1300 309 519 (and, if necessary, Coronial Admissions and Enquiries) and Victoria Police been contacted? o) Is access to works site available to the RAP and/or heritage advisor if necessary?
p) Has sensitive information been treated appropriately?
2.10 Non-Compliance with Management Conditions and Contingency Plans
If a breach of the CHMP is identified the Sponsor must immediately report the breach by contacting the Statewide Compliance & Enforcement Unit, Aboriginal Victoria, via email to: [email protected] or by telephoning 1800 762 003. It is RAP policy that all non-compliance issues must result in a stop works until such a time as a meeting can be held between the RAP, the Sponsor, and a suitably qualified Heritage Advisor. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the process and address non-compliance issues. A stop works measure must be implemented even if the non-compliance has not resulted in harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage.
2.11 Limited Interim Retention of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage by Heritage Advisor
A suitably qualified Heritage Advisor must be engaged to investigate the discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage and is permitted to retain custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage for the purposes of analyses for an interim period up to six (6) months only. Before or upon expiry of this period, any Aboriginal cultural heritage must be returned to the owner of that heritage, together with a copy of any relevant catalogue and report. Permanent Custody Arrangements must be made before and no later than the expiry of the six-month custody period permitted to the Heritage Advisor. Arrangements for the permanent custody of any Aboriginal cultural heritage must be carried out and completely finalised.
2.12 Assignment of Custody of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
If Aboriginal cultural heritage (with the exception of Aboriginal human remains or secret or sacred objects) is discovered before, during or after the activity, responsibility for the custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage must comply with the conditions established by the Act and be assigned according to the following order of priority, as appropriate: 1. any relevant RAP that is registered for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 9 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 2. any relevant registered native title holder for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; any relevant native title party (as defined in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006) for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; 3. any relevant Aboriginal person or persons with traditional or familial links with the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; 4. any relevant Aboriginal body or organisation which has historical or contemporary interests in Aboriginal heritage relating to the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; 5. the owner of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; 6. the Museum of Victoria.
2.13 Use of the activity area lot.
As per Clause 13(2) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 the CHMP contingency plans must address how each lot within the activity area is to be utilised by the Sponsor. The client of this CHMP, Andrew Austen, intends to subdivide activity area for the purposes of a constructing a residential subdivision. The activity area encompasses 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. The land is subject to Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme. As per the Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme the address comprises Lot 1\TP829725. The proposed activity will construct residential properties across this lot as per Section 4 of this CHMP. The current activity area is subject to Low-Density Residential Zone and as Rural Living Zone (RLZ) under the Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme (Appendix 9). Under the Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme, the development of the activity area into multiple lots for the purpose of residential dwelling construction is permitted. This is provided that all the relevant requirements of this planning scheme are adhered to, which are found in the Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme Low-Density Residential Zone and on Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme Rural Living Zone (RLZ). Andrew Austen intends to develop the land only in the manner permitted by the Rural Living Zone and Low- Density Residential Zone of the City of Warrnambool Planning Scheme as noted above and will adhere to all of its requirements, see Appendix 4.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 10 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 Part 2: Assessment
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 11 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 3 INTRODUCTION
3.1 Background
U.C.A. Pty Ltd Cultural Heritage Planners (Urban Colours) have been engaged by BTH Pty Ltd (ABN 90 162 121 637), the Sponsor, to prepare a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) in response to a proposed residential subdivision at 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria (Warrnambool City Council) (Map 1). The heritage advisor for this plan is Annette Xiberras. The author of this plan is Edward East. Details of the qualifications of all personnel who worked on this CHMP are provided in Section 3.9.
3.2 Name of Sponsor
The Sponsor of this CHMP is BTH Pty Ltd (ABN 90 162 121 637). The Sponsors representative is Andrew Austen. The Sponsor’s contact for the CHMP is: Dan Pech, Senior Planning Consultant, Myers Planning Group. Phone: 0436 016 612 Email: [email protected]
3.3 Name of Owner and Occupier of the Activity Area
The land is currently privately owned and managed by BTH Pty Ltd.
3.4 Location of the Activity Area
The activity area is located at 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. The activity area is located approximately 257 km south-west of Melbourne CBD. The activity area is bordered to the north by Bridge Road, to the west and east and south by agricultural paddocks. The activity area also encompasses part of the road reserve associated with Bridge Road, Bushfield. The activity area is located within the LGA Warrnambool City Council (Map 1). The activity area is 205,663m2 in area (Maps 1 and 2) and is currently zoned as Low-Density Residential Zone and as Rural Living Zone (RLZ).
3.5 Reason for Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan
This CHMP has been prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and is required under the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. The specific Regulations which trigger the requirement for this mandatory CHMP are as follows: Regulation 26 Waterways (1) Subject to sub regulation (2), a waterway or land within 200 metres of a waterway is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. Under Regulation 49 Subdivision of land (1) The subdivision of land into 3 or more lots is a high impact activity if— (a) the planning scheme that applies to the activity area in which the land to be subdivided is located provides that at least 3 of the lots may be used for a dwelling or may be used for a dwelling subject to the grant of a permit; and (b) the area of each of at least 3 of the lots is less than 8 hectares.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 12 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 The activity area is located within 200 metres of the Merri River, an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. The proposed development is a high impact activity as it involves the construction of a residential subdivision.
3.6 Notice of Intent to Prepare the Cultural Heritage Management Plan
Under s.54 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Sponsor of a CHMP must give notice of their intention (NOI) to prepare a CHMP, see Appendix 1. In accordance with s.54(1)(a) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Sponsor must submit a NOI to the RAP prior to preparing a CHMP. The NOI was submitted to the DPC and the Sponsor on 06 March 2020. The Sponsor submitted the NOI to the RAP the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation on 19 March 2020. The Eastern Maar decline to evaluate the CHMP on 19 March 2020. As per s.56(1)a the Sponsor notified the Secretary that the Eastern Maar declined to evaluate the CHMP on 19 March 2020. As the Eastern Maar decline to evaluate the CHMP the Secretary is to undertake the CHMP evaluation.
3.7 Registered Aboriginal Party Responsible for the Activity Area
The activity area is located within the RAP area of the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation (Eastern Maar) and was appointed as the RAP by the Aboriginal Heritage Council under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Eastern Maar advised on 19 March 2020 that they would participate in all the fieldwork aspects of the assessment but declined to evaluate the CHMP. As a result, the CHMP is to be evaluated by the Secretary.
3.8 Aims of the Assessment
The aims of the assessment were to:
• Determine the cultural heritage sensitivity of the activity area
• Establish levels of disturbance across the activity area
• Establish the stratigraphy of the activity area
• Determine the location, nature, and distribution of Aboriginal places within the activity area
• Assess the cultural and scientific significance of any Aboriginal places within the activity area
• Determine whether Aboriginal places can be avoided by the proposed activity through design or management. This CHMP has been undertaken in accordance with the Guide to Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Aboriginal Victoria [AV] 2010).
3.9 Personnel Involved
The director of UCA is Annette Xibberas. The Heritage Advisor of this CHMP is Annette Xibberas. The author of this CHMP is Edward East. GIS Mapping was undertaken by Edward East. Fieldwork for this CHMP, including the standard and complex assessment was undertaken by Edward East and Mark Grist. Annette Xiberras
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 13 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 Annette is the Managing Director at Urban Colours. Annette has a vast knowledge and understanding of the cultural heritage of south-eastern Australia. Annette is a Wurundjeri Elder who has worked in Aboriginal archaeology and cultural heritage management for more than 25 years. Her formal qualifications include: • Department of Aboriginal Affairs Aboriginal Site Officer Training, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Melbourne. 2000. • Certificate III in Aboriginal Sites Work (Koorie Site Officers), Northern Metropolitan Tafe, Melbourne. 2002. • Graduate Diploma Natural and Cultural Resource Management, Deakin University, Melbourne. 2006. Edward East Edward East has worked as a consultant archaeologist since 2008, gaining extensive experience in Aboriginal and historic archaeology. He has worked in many parts of Victoria, across Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and in Papua New Guinea and Kuwait. Close and amicable relationships with Indigenous groups was a critical part of his Australian and Papuan Indigenous focused projects. Edward is listed as a Heritage Advisor. He has directed many Victorian Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage management projects. As part of this work he has undertaken due diligences, historic research, archaeological survey, and excavation, authoring of many Cultural Heritage Management Plans, lithic analysis, and GIS mapping. Edward is well versed to provide clients in Victoria with advice on all cultural heritage matters. • Bachelor of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne. 2006. • Post-Graduate Diploma Arts (Archaeology), The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 2009. • Master of Arts (Archaeology), The University of Durham, United Kingdom, 2013. Mark Grist Mark Grist is a qualified archaeologist and Heritage Advisor who studied at the Australian National University majoring in archaeology and anthropology. Mark has spent many years recording and protecting Aboriginal heritage sites throughout Australia and has been at the forefront of recording biological information from Australian Aboriginal Ancestral remains, contributing significantly to the return of Ancestral remains to various Aboriginal communities throughout Australia. Mark was for a period of six years the Curator for South-eastern Australia at the Victorian State Museum and continues this relationship with the state museum as an Honorary Associate. Mark Grist is an Australian Aboriginal man. He belongs to the peoples of the Wergaia Wamba Wamba and Nyeri Nyeri of northwest Victoria. He worked as a cultural heritage consultant for several years before returning to the Victorian government as the Manager of the Statewide Heritage Programs. Mark’s most recent role with the Victorian government was the State Heritage Adviser for the Victorian Department for Planning and Community Development a position he held since 2003. In 2009 Mark returned to the private sector as the Director of Grist Archaeology-Heritage Management Pty. Ltd. Projects in 2009/12 include key infrastructure, mining, and natural resources projects/developments within Australia. • Bachelor of Archaeology (Hons), The Australian National University, Canberra, 2001. Ariana Spencer-Gardner Ariana Spencer-Gardner a qualified archaeologist and Heritage Advisor who has worked in Victorian cultural heritage since 2018. Over that time, she has worked as contractor for a number of Victorian archaeology firms. • Bachelor of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne. 2017. • Master of Professional Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne. 2019.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 14 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020 3.10 Report Submission
The CHMP was initially submitted for approval to the Department of Aboriginal Victoria, on 21/08//2020, as per s.62 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Following comments received from the department of Aboriginal Victoria the CHMP was resubmitted on 06/10/2020, as per s.62 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Following further comments received from the department of Aboriginal Victoria the CHMP was resubmitted on 06/11/2020, as per s.62 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 15 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
4 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
The Sponsor intends to subdivide and construct residential dwellings across 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria (Map 3. Figures 3 – 4). This activity will involve: • The demolition of an existing dwelling and associated infrastructure that is already located within the activity area. • Earthworks, including stripping and levelling prior to construction works, this will affect all areas designated as residential lots, planned road axis, planned pedestrian footpath axis and in the locations of drainage waterways, 100% of the activity area will be impacted by stripping and levelling. • The construction of a temporary on-site sales office. • Laying of introduced crushed rock base, asphalt surfaces including multiple roads, concrete housing slabs and kerbs. Soil within the activity area will remain on site and will not be removed. • Construction of residential dwellings on multiple lots. The activity will also involve associated infrastructure supply works, including: • Installation of water mains. • Installation of electricity mains. • Installation of telecommunication services. • Planting of trees along street axis. • Construction of footpaths. • Construction of a surfaced footpath along the north east road reserve area of Bridge Road (Figure 1). • Construction of surfaced asphalt roads. • Construction of an asphalted road providing access to Bridge Road (Figure 2). • Construction of public lighting along planned road axis. • Construction of perimeter and internal residential fencing. • Installation of stormwater infrastructure (kerb and channel) and construction of two drainage reserves. The maximum depth of infrastructure and service installation is expected to be between 1 – 4 metres. Cumulative impacts to the activity area will involve maintenance and the ongoing management and maintenance of roads, paths and services, including (but not limited to): • Revegetation and general landscaping. • Road work maintenance. • Maintenance to services within the activity area. • Installation of road signage.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 16 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
5 EXTENT OF THE ACTIVITY AREA
The activity area is located at 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. The activity area is located approximately 257 km south-west of Melbourne CBD. The activity area is bordered to the north by Bridge Road, to the west and east and south by agricultural paddocks. The activity area also encompasses part of the road reserve associated with Bridge Road, Bushfield, no cadastral details are associated with this reserve area. The activity area is located within the LGA Warrnambool City Council (Map 1). The activity area is 205,663m2 in area (Maps 1 and 2) and is currently zoned as Low-Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and as Rural Living Zone (RLZ) under the Warrnambool City Council Planning Scheme. The land is currently privately owned by BTH Pty Ltd.
Table 2: Cadastral information. Address 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria LGA Warrnambool City Council Council Property 141340 Number Parish Purnim Land Parcel Details 1\TP829725 UTM zone 55
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 17 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 1: Location of the activity area.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 18 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 2: Current ground conditions and extent of the activity area (Google Earth 09/06/2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 19 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 3: Development plan of the activity area.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 20 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Figure 1: Pedestrian footpath to be constructed in reserve area on south side of Bridge Road.
Figure 2: Tarmacked access road and pedestrian crossing to be constructed in road reserve area on south side of Bridge Road.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 21 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
6 DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION
6.1 Consultation in Relation to the Assessment
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requires consultation with any RAP registered under the Act. The activity area is located within the RAP area of the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation (Eastern Maar) and was appointed as the RAP by the Aboriginal Heritage Council under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Eastern Maar advised on 19 March 2020 that they would participate in all the fieldwork aspects of the assessment but declined to evaluate the CHMP. As a result, the CHMP is to be evaluated by the Secretary.
6.2 Participation in the Conduct of the Assessment
The Eastern Maar field representatives present during the standard and complex assessments discussed the proposed activity and approved of the methodology and interpretation of results following the field program. A phone conversation was also held with Craig Black Edwards, Eastern Maar Cultural Heritage and NRM Manager, during the complex assessment. He also approved of the methodology and interpretation of results. Table 3 outlines the dates and personnel who participated in the standard assessment and complex assessment phases of the CHMP. Table 3: Consultation in relation to the assessment.
Heritage Advisor/Project Stakeholder Date Details of Consultation Manager Group
09 March Mark Grist VAHR (AV) NOI submitted to AV. 2020 (UCA) UCA
19 March Ariana Spencer-Gardner Eastern Maar NOI submitted to Eastern Maar. Eastern Maar to participate in 2020 (UCA) UCA field work but declined to evaluate CHMP.
19 March Ariana Spencer-Gardner Eastern Maar Request for Eastern Maar representatives to participate in the 2020 (UCA) UCA standard and complex assessments.
23 March Mark Grist Eastern Maar Standard assessment conducted, in attendance Mark Grist 2020 (UCA) UCA (UCA) Stephen Chatfield and Jryran Chatfield (Eastern Maar).
Complex assessment conducted, in attendance Edward East 9 – 12 Edward East Eastern Maar (UCA), Dylan Parrot (UCA), Stephen Chatfield and Jryran June 2020 (UCA) UCA Chatfield (Eastern Maar).
Phone update on results of complex assessment, lack of cultural 12 June Edward East Eastern Maar heritage material discussed between Edward East (UCA) and 2020 (UCA) UCA Craig Black Edwards (Eastern Maar).
Edward East 10 August UCA Phone discussion held regarding comments received from initial (UCA) 2020 AV CHMP evaluation. Diana Smith (AV)
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 22 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
12 Edward East UCA Phone discussion held regarding comments received from initial August (UCA) AV CHMP evaluation. 2020 Harry Webber (AV)
12 Edward East UCA Email sent by Edward East (UCA) to Harry Webber (AV) August (UCA) AV regarding comments received from initial CHMP evaluation. 2020 Harry Webber (AV)
Edward East (UCA) Mark Grist (UCA) Additional standard/complex assessment undertaken of activity 17 Hayden Harradine Eastern Maar area extension. In attendance Edward East (UCA) Mark Grist September (Eastern Maar) Mundara UCA (UCA), Hayden Harradine (Eastern Maar) and Mundara Clark 2020 Clark (Eastern Maar). (Eastern Maar).
6.3 Consultation in Relation to the Conditions
Prior to lodgement of this CHMP for approval, a draft of the CHMP was provided to Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation for comment.
Table 4: Consultation in relation to the conditions. Date Heritage Advisor/Project Stakeholder Group Details of Consultation Manager 6 July 2020 Eastern Maar CHMP Submitted to Eastern Maar Edward East (UCA) UCA for comment. 25 CHMP Submitted to Eastern Maar Eastern Maar September Edward East (UCA) for comment. UCA 2020
6.4 Summary of the Outcomes of Consultation
During the complex assessment Edward East (UCA Heritage Advisor) contact Craig Black Edwards (Eastern Maar Heritage and NRM Manager) to discuss the results of the assessment. Craig Edwards expressed satisfaction with the field results and proposed CHMP management conditions. The CHMP was submitted to Eastern Maar for comment on 06 July 2020, no comments were received in response. During a subsequent standard assessment and complex assessment undertaken in response to an extension of the activity area on the 17th September 2020 Eastern Maar field representatives expressed satisfaction with the field results. The CHMP was submitted to Eastern Maar for comment on 25th September 2020, no additional comments were received.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 23 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
7 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT
This section represents the result of the desktop assessment in accordance with Regulation 56(1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007.
7.1 The Geographic Region
The geographic region of the current activity area falls within the Western Volcanic Plains Geomorphic unit, which stretches from Melbourne to the South Australian border. The volcanic plain is characterised by flat to undulating ground intercepted by volcanoes. The activity area is located on the volcanic plain characterised by flood basalt through which Merri River has carved a gorge to a depth of up to 37m (Map 1). The geographic region borders are formed by the Melbourne to Warrnambool trainline across the south east, the Merri River across the south west, the Merri River, Yangerry Creek, Conns Lane North, Warrnambool Caramut Road as the western border, the west to east axis of Manifold Creek as the north border and Grassmere Road, Staywood Road and Alberline Road as the east border. This geographic region was selected as the most appropriate in order to establish a suitable analysis of the local area. The coast and its dunes have not been included as part of the geographic region. This is because the sand dunes and estuary landforms associated with the coastline do not extend into the current activity area. The selection of this geographic region is appropriate given that the activity area forms part of a much larger geographic region that extends across the entire basalt plain of western Victoria. The previously registered Aboriginal places across this geographic region provides a substantial amount of information as to the places most likely to occur within the activity area and is therefore entirely relevant to the site prediction model provided. The number of previous archaeological studies that have been recorded across this region and close to the current activity area will further enhance the site prediction model provided.
7.2 Climate
The last world glacial period, which began c. 80,000 years before present (BP), lowered temperatures and sea levels. This cooling period peaked c. 18,000 BP when the sea level receded to 120 metres below its present level and the temperature dropped to between six and ten degrees Celsius colder than present temperatures (Kershaw 1995). During this phase, Tasmania was joined to the mainland by an isthmus of land, and semi-arid grasslands covered large areas of Victoria (Kershaw 1995). As conditions ameliorated, climatic conditions became milder, although wetter. At approximately 5,000 BP, conditions became slightly cooler and drier, similar to the present climate (Kershaw 1995). Vast grasslands continued to dominate Victoria until recently (Kershaw 1995). These changes in climatic conditions suggest that the flora and fauna of Victoria, and therefore of the activity area, went through substantial changes during the same period. The changes must have impacted on Aboriginal subsistence and patterns of exploitation in the activity area and the surrounding region. During cooler and windier periods, especially between 18,000 and 5,000 BP, the region was exposed to strong, cold, westerly winds. It can be assumed that if the region was occupied during this period, areas with some protection from those winds were favoured during the colder periods. The generally mild but seasonably variable climate of the past 5,000 years was conducive to Aboriginal occupation throughout the year with possible seasonal movements to more sheltered locations in winter months (Hiscock 2008: 183–198). The Land Conservation Council of Victoria defines the activity area as being situated within the Corangamite region. Being situated between 37.4 and 38.9 south latitude, the region experiences a temperate climate with dominant westerly winds, variable cloud, moderate precipitation, and cool temperatures. The annual average
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 24 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
rainfall is c. 726 mm at Warrnambool and the average annual temperatures range between 5.1 and 23.5 degrees (LCC 1991).
7.2.1 Geology of the activity area A review of the landforms and geomorphology of the activity area provides a context for understanding the pre- Contact Aboriginal land use and occupation patterns that led to the formation of archaeological sites, and also for understanding what subsequent process have affected the integrity and contents of any sites present. An understanding of the geology and environment is fundamental to understanding the pre-European context of Indigenous land use and settlement. It is also important to understand the changes that have occurred to the environment since European arrival, as these have significant implications for site preservation and location. The current geological landscape of western Victoria was formed during the Quaternary age, 1.6 million years ago to present. Across western Victorian is the Newer Volcanic Plains on which is located at least a dozen extinct volcanoes. Known volcano locations include Mount Cottrell. Mount Kororoit, Mount Cottrell, Spring Hill, and Bald Hill. These are four of some 20 volcanic cones in the region which have been identified as the source of the lava flow that created the basalt plain today called the Newer Volcanic’s, which characterise the plans of western Victoria. These erupted approximately one to five million years ago resulting in the basalt plain that covers the western plains, including the current activity area. The lava flows range in age from four million to less than two million years old, and have brown clay soils with calcrete development, reflecting the low rainfall of the area (Birch 2003: 560). The present land surface of the activity area has evolved through the processes of erosion, faulting, and volcanic activity. Palaeozoic bedrock protrudes through Pleistocene-era lava sheets to produce an undulating surface. Lava flows disrupted earlier drainage channels. Post-eruption drainage channels developed a meandering course on a gently sloping surface. Such channels became entrenched into the lava producing deep gorge-like valleys. Channels such as the Merri River, 180 metres to the north of the present activity area, became entrenched along the boundary between the lava and the softer Silurian bedrock (McAndrew & Marsden, 1973: 14) (Map4). The geology of the activity area is important for establishing what stone resources would have been available to Aboriginal people. Silcrete is an important raw stone material used by Aboriginal people and found throughout many drainage lines across the western Volcanic plains. Silcrete is often formed in the presence of basalt and is the result of a chemical reaction during the weathering process. Basalt is found across the region and occurs on the surface in the region as ‘floaters’. Basalt rock contains large amounts of silica and is easily weathered (Webb 1995: 11, 12). The current shoreline of Victoria is located 7km south of the current activity area. The current shoreline was created at the end of the last ice age, when the sea level rose, cutting the link between Victoria and Tasmania. Around 6,000–5,000 years ago, the coastline stabilised to the present conditions (Birch 2003).
7.2.2 Geomorphology of the activity area The geomorphology of the activity area is indicative of what stone resources may have been available to Aboriginal people in the past. It is also important in establishing the age range of the soil deposit the activity area is situated on. The department of Agriculture Victoria has mapped the geomorphology of the activity area as consisting of geomorphic unit 6.1.4 plains with well-developed drainage and deep regolith (VRO Online 2020: Unit 6.1.4) (Map 5). The department has established that these plains with well-developed drainage represent earlier Pliocene volcanic landscapes, with an age range of five million to two million years ago. These areas are characterised by very planar landscapes with thicker soil development. Regolith profiles on these old basaltic lavas have developed many metres of pallid kaolinitic clay, with ironstone at shallow depth. Associated soil types are predominantly black and brown sodic mottled texture contrast soils (VRO Online 2020: Unit 6.1.4). A
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 25 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
geomorphological deposit of this type indicates that outcrops of silcrete. a common stone resources for Aboriginal people, are unlikely to occur within the activity area, but that large amounts of basalt, in a variety of forms, is to be anticipated.
7.3 Native Vegetation and Fauna
According to ecological vegetation class (EVC) projections, prior to European contact the activity area would have consisted of Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 55) (DELWP 2020) (Map 6). This consisted of open, grassy eucalypt woodland with an understorey that consists of a few sparse shrubs over a species-rich grassy and herbaceous ground layer. Typically dominated by Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis), the understorey may include shrubs of Lightwood Acacia (Implexa), Creeping Bossiaea (Bossiaea prostrata) and Cranberry Heath (Astroloma humifusum). Common grasses include Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides) and Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra). Close to the activity area, along the banks of nearby creeks & rivers, such as the Merri River, Riparian shrubland/escarpment shrubland/grassy woodland mosaic (EVC 666) and Swamp Scrub (EVC 053) was present. The two habitats share similar geographic distribution and species of flora. The associated flora of these habitats consists of woodland of swampy depressions of lowland plains, with a sedgy-herbaceous understorey which includes aquatic species. Below a canopy of river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), aquatic plants such as tall spike rush (Eleocharis sphacelata), duckweed (Lemna sp) and bullrush (Typha angustifolia) grow. On creek and riverbanks, terrestrial plant species such as spiny flat-sedge (Cyperus gymnocaulos) can be found (Cochrane et al. 1968:88–95). Prior to European arrival, the region supported a wide range of faunal species hunted by the Aboriginal people. Larger species, such as kangaroos, possums, wallabies, and emu, were common. Other species recorded at the time of early European contact, which have since largely or wholly disappeared, included quolls, pademelons, potoroos, fat-tailed dunnart, and eastern barred bandicoot (LCC 1991:107). There is likely to have been seasonal variation, with higher numbers in summer. Aboriginal subsistence activities would also have focused the large swamplands of the Koo Wee Rup system. The swamp originally covered more than 40,000 hectares, of dense swamp paperbark (Melaleuca ericifolia), some open grasslands, reed beds (Phragmites australis) and bullrushes (Typha spp). This extensive swamp would have provided a wider range of resources for Aboriginal people than the plains and a much more reliable water source, with freshwater mussels, fish, eels, waterbirds, lizards, and small marsupials a reliable food source throughout most of the year (Map 6).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 26 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 4: Geology across the geographic region.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 27 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 5: Geomorphology of the activity area.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 28 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 6: 1750 EVC categories across the geographic region.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 29 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
7.4 Historical and Ethno-Historical Accounts in the Geographic Region
Archaeological evidence suggests that Aboriginal people have occupied south-eastern Australia for at least 40,000 years BP (Flood 1995: 284–7). One of the oldest dated archaeological sites in Victoria is at Keilor in Melbourne where charcoal from a hearth excavated in 1973 has been dated to 31,000 years BP (Flood 1995: 286). The information used to establish pre-settlement Aboriginal spatial organisation is mostly based on observations made by Europeans during the initial period of contact and subsequent settlement of the activity area. The people who occupied the activity area have been identified by Clark (1990: 54–55) as the Tarerergundidj in the Dhauwurd wurrung language area (also referred to as Gundidjmara). Clans speaking the Dhauwurd wurrung language managed the country in an area bounded by the Hopkins River in the east, the Glenelg River in the west and the Wannon River in the north (Clark 1990: 54). The clan name ‘Tarerer’ referred to a large swamp between the Merri River and Tower Hill, probably the area known as Kellys Swamp today (Clark 1990: 55, 78). Previous archaeological work (see Section 5.3 above) has demonstrated that both Kellys Swamp and Tower Hill contain significant Aboriginal occupation sites. The Tarerer Swamp was described by Robinson in 1841 as a place where large gatherings of coastal clans occurred when whales were present along the coastline (Clark 1990: 78). Tower Hill is also known as a place of traditional religious significance to clans in the area. In April 1841, the clan head of the Tarerergundidj was described to Robinson as a man named Wone.der.rac. (Presland 1977: 62) Aboriginal clans in the Western District lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, moving from one locality to another to make use of seasonal resources, trading opportunities and to meet ritual and kinship obligations. Ethno-historical records suggest that in some seasons Aboriginal people of the Western District lived a more settled life than Aboriginal people in other areas of south-east Australia. These beliefs are based on the presence and observations of shelters and ‘villages’ in the Western District (Schell 1995: 8). Thomas received a description of a ‘village’ near Caramut from a local informant: There was on the banks of the creek between 20 and 30 huts of the form of a beehive or sugar loaf, some of them capable of holding a dozen people … These buildings were all made of a circular form, closely worked and then covered with mud (Cited in Williams 1984: 174). Robinson observed the presence of many huts in Western Victoria (Presland 1977: 36, 38, 73, 85). He records that in the stony rises there were “plenty of huts of dirt and others built of stones” (Clark 1998b: 19). However, whether these huts or villages were inhabited on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, or were returned to seasonally, is not known. Critchett (1992) theorises that Tower Hill Lake was an important meeting place for different clan groups and speculates that ceremonial and trading activities took place there. The freshwater source combined with mixed deposits of cultural heritage material (indicating domestic activity) and the number of burial sites in the region supports her theory. The diet of the Western District Aboriginal people consisted of a wide range of mammals, fish, birds, plant food and fungi (Dawson 1881: 18–22). Ethno- historical accounts suggest the daisy yam was a staple plant food, being available year-round, although less palatable in early winter (Gott 1983: 6–8). Dawson (1881) refers to a gum which was used by the Aboriginal people near the Hopkins River; his reference reflects how the distribution and availability of a food source was affected by the arrival of the Europeans: Another kind of manna, also called buumbuul, is deposited in considerable quantities by the large dark coloured
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 30 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
cicadae on the stemsof white gum trees near the River Hopkins. The natives ascend the trees and scrape off as much as a bucketful of waxen cells filled with a liquid resembling honey, which they mix with gum dissolved in cold water and use as a drink. They say that, in consequence of the great increase of opossums, caused by the destruction of the wild dog, they never get any buumbuul now, as the opossums eat it all (Dawson 1881:21). Eels were seasonally exploited and would have been an important food source in the autumn months. There are numerous accounts of eel fishing and trapping and the eel trapping infrastructure remains in some places including along the Hopkins River (Schell, 1995: 9). Plants such as myrnong, bracken and tree ferns provided staple foods for Aboriginal people, while medicines could be made from species such as Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii), and the wood or bark from Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata) could be used to manufacture implements. The grasses and water reeds, paperbark trees and Eucalypts all provided raw material for baskets and bark and wooden implements. The bark from stringy bark (yangoro) and mountain ash (yowork) was selected for the manufacture of bark canoes. Apart from the manufacture of implements and access to food and medicinal resources, the bark from these trees would also have been removed for other ceremonial and social non- utilitarian purposes. The roots (rhizomes or tubers) of the Cumbungi (Typha orientalis), Water ribbon (Triglochin procerum) and Common Reed (Phragmites australis) were harvested and cooked in earth ovens (Gott & Conran 1991: 8–9). In the case of the Cumbungi, after being cooked, the centre part of the rhizome was knotted then chewed to extract starch, and the remaining fibre was used for string (Gott & Conran 1991: 8). These resources would have existed within or adjacent to the activity area. Some stone resources used by Aboriginal people would have been available in locations near the present activity area. Silcrete, flint and quartz were favoured stone materials for the manufacture of stone implements. These materials would have been readily available from nearby sources. Quartz pebbles were widely available in riverbeds, beaches and alluvial deposits. Flint was readily available in the form of nodules originating from undersea Miocene limestones which could be collected on the beaches. Basalt was used occasionally as it was in plentiful supply along the volcanic plains but was not a preferred material as it is harder to work with due to its porous nature. The most important raw material used in the manufacture of axes was greenstone. There are accessible source points for this material, the most well-known being Mount William, near Lancefield (Coutts et al 1976).
Figure 3: Dhauwurd Wurrung Language Boundary and Clans (Clark 1990: 54).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 31 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
7.4.1 Post-Contact History From 1839–1849 the British Government established an Aboriginal Protectorate to mediate between Aboriginal communities and European colonists, with George Augustus Robinson employed as the Chief Protector of Aborigines. Four Assistant Protectors were employed and each assigned jurisdiction over an area. C. W. Sievwright was assigned to the Western District in 1841 (Cannon 1983: 365). In 1850 William Gray, the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Portland Bay, provided a census of the Aboriginal population in the district. He recorded 20 adult males, 15 adult females and four children (Clark 1990: 45). In 1858, a select Committee of the Legislative Council was appointed to inquire into the condition of Aboriginal people in the State. Reports from squatters in the area estimated that the Aboriginal population in the area had been reduced by 75 per cent during the 1840s and 1850s (Clark 1990: 197–8). Violence between Aboriginal groups and European pastoralists was common throughout the region. Aboriginal people were forced off their traditional lands, with many squatters prohibiting Aboriginal people access to their runs (Clark 1998b: 153–155). There are extensive reports of ‘guerrilla warfare; between Aboriginal people and squatters and their employees’ throughout the 1840s. There are stories of Aboriginal people using the stony rises around Eumeralla River as a base for attacking the European settlers who had dispossessed them. This conflict has been called the Eumeralla War (Clark 1989). Aboriginal people in search of food and other basic items began living on the fringes of Warrnambool, where government rations were available from 1860 onwards (Clark 1990: 40). These people were moved to the Framlingham Aboriginal Mission when it opened in 1861. This Aboriginal reserve covered 3500 acres near the Hopkins River; a large section of land that included the Framlingham forest, the only forested area in the region. In 1867 the Board decided to close Framlingham and move the inhabitants to the new station at Lake Condah, however the people living on the mission refused to leave and successfully protested: Framlingham was reopened in 1869. In 1877, a census conducted by the police listed 69 Aborigines at the Framlingham Aboriginal Station (Barwick 1971: Table 20: 2). The number of people at Framlingham represents the gathering together of people at the station rather than an increase in population, as the total Aboriginal population of south-western Victoria decreased from 727 in 1863 to 236 in 1877. By 1863 the Aboriginal population of Victoria was less than 2000, or 13 per cent of the estimated pre-European Aboriginal population (Barwick 1971: 288). In 1886, the introduction of the Aborigines Protection Act meant that only people considered as ‘full-blooded’, or ‘half-caste’ people over 35 years of age, were allowed to remain on the Mission Stations. This led to a decreased labour force on the stations and an increase in fringe-dwelling Aboriginal people in the Melbourne region (Presland 1994: 105, 107). In 1890 the Colonial government reserved an area of 582 acres for the use of Aboriginal people at Framlingham, but refused to staff the station, or provide assistance such as teachers, equipment and livestock. In the 1930s public concern was raised regarding conditions of the Aboriginal people at Framlingham. Under mounting pressure, the government agreed to build an additional twelve cottages, and a school was opened and residents given weekly rations. There were multiple attempts to close Framlingham over the years, however the residents remained strongly attached to their land and defeated attempts to remove them. European colonisation and cultural integration stripped the Aboriginal people of their way of life, causing the surviving population to become dependent on government aid (Broome, 2002). Prior to European arrival, the Aboriginal population of Victoria was estimated at 10,000–20,000 people (Presland, 2010: 90). By 1861, some 540,000 Europeans immigrants were living in Victoria and fewer than 2,000 Victorian Aboriginal people remained (Presland, 2010: 90). Thirty years after the foundation of Melbourne in 1835, it is known that the combined population of the Melbourne area tribes, the Woi wurrung and Boon wurrung, had been reduced to 28 individuals (Presland, 2010: 90). At the beginning of the 20th century, when the colonies of Australia became a federation,
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 32 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
the reported number of Aboriginal people in the entire state of Victoria was estimated to be 650 (Presland, 2010: 90). European Contact had taken a deathly toll on the Aboriginal peoples of Victoria (Barwick, 1984: 109). In 1970, under the Aboriginal Lands Act, Framlingham was handed to the Framlingham Trust and resumed operation under Aboriginal ownership and management. In the 1980s, Land Rights claims were issued for 1,000 acres of the Framlingham Forest surrounding the Mission Station. This continued from 1980–87, when the land was handed over to the Kirrae Whurrong Aboriginal Corporation at Lake Condah and Framlingham. Aboriginal people still live on the mission land and continue to manage the land there (ATNS Database 2020: Framlingham Aboriginal Reserve).
7.5 Land Use History of the Geographic Region
Visits by sealers to the coastal regions of south-west Victoria may have begun as early as the late 18th century. These visits appear to have been almost entirely restricted to the coastal area. Periodic visits by whalers may have begun as early as 1810. The first shore-based whaling station appears to have been that of William Dutton, who established a station at Portland in 1828 (Townrow 1997: 11). Thomas Mitchell’s account of his explorations of ‘Australia Felix’ provided a significant impetus to the movement of squatters to the west and south-west of Victoria. As details of his travels became known, there was a rapid influx of settlers to the region. Edmund Henty established his settlement at Portland in 1834 (Kiddle 1963: 31). From 1837 onwards squatting runs were rapidly established throughout the region. Occupation of the country progressed from several directions at once – overland from the north, from Melbourne and Geelong in the east and Portland in the west (Powell 1996). During the 1850–1860 gold rush the European population of Victoria dramatically increased, with demand for land being particularly great among men returning from the diggings. This resulted in widespread clearance of land for sheep grazing and agriculture. This in turn destroyed many traditional hunting areas and led to conflict with Aboriginal people (Powell 1996). As a result of the districts increasing agricultural settlement, it became necessary that another port in the west should be established. During May 1845, Charles La Trobe, Superintendent of the Port Phillip District, along with a party of other prominent men from the district, visited the area, selecting the site for a township that would become known as Warrnambool. The first lots within the new township area were sold in 1847 (Osbourne 1887: 1). Warrnambool’s name is thought to have been derived from an Aboriginal word with several attributed meanings, including place of plenty, running swamps and a growing tree (Victorian Places 2020: Warrnambool). Warrnambool made little progress during its first years as it was dependent on the sea for the arrival of people and goods, as the overland route to Warrnambool was slow and difficult (Beavis 1993: vii).However, by late 1848, the town had two blacksmiths, a wheelwright, a tailor, carters, carpenters, two butchers, two stonemasons, two general stores, two hotels, the commencement of a postal service and a Sunday school. A National School and a hospital opened in the following two years. The town grew steadily over the coming years and Warrnambool was declared a municipality on 6 December 1855. (O'Callaghan 2004). Today Warrnambool is the capital city of the south west coastal region of western Victoria, it is the fifth largest city in Victoria. The mainstay of the economy is agriculture and its support industries. Other major industries and services include retail, education, health, meat processing, clothing manufacture and construction (Victorian Places 2020: Warrnambool).
7.6 Land use History of the Activity Area
The current activity area is located close to the small township of Bushfield, which is 7 km north of Warrnambool. Bushfield is situated on the east side of the Merri River. Apart from having a post office constructed in 1885,
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 33 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Bushfield has had no other institution or public building. It has been a grazing and dairying area since the beginning of the township (Victorian Places 2020: Bushfield). The land use history of the geographic region surrounding the activity area has broadly established the local area has been used for agricultural purposes since at least 1856. The CHMP Sponsors representative, Andrew Austen, confirmed that it was local knowledge that the activity area was used for in the past for the cropping of silver beet. However, certificate of title records do not provide any information on the land use history of the current activity area and no secondary historical sources mention the current activity area specifically. As a result, the current activity area land use history has been broadly established via the analysis of historic aerial imagery (Christopher. et al 2018. Yang, et al. 2014) (Table 5).
Table 5: Historic aerial analysis. Map Aerial Imagery Ground Conditions No. Date 7 1947 Activity area consists of at least three irregularly shaped agricultural paddocks and areas of dirt road and road reserve associated with Bridge Road. Native vegetation has been cleared. Ploughing is evident in the north west part of the activity area. A series of sheds is present in the centre of the activity area. A dam is also present in the south east part of the activity area. 8 1968 A dwelling and sheds has been constructed in the north of the activity area. A copse of pine trees has been planted in the south west part of the activity area. The rest of the activity area consists of vacant agricultural paddocks. 9 1978 The ongoing use of the activity area for agricultural purposes is evident. A paddock in the south west corner of the activity area is being utilised for cropping purposes. The axis of Bridge Road has moved to the north and part of the previous road area is now a reserve area. 10 2001 The activity area agricultural paddocks have been divided in an irregular manner. All paddocks are being utilised for cropping purposes.
This review of historic aerial imagery has established that the primary land use history of the activity area since at least 1947 has been agricultural in nature, with imagery showing that parts of the activity area have been utilised for cropping purposes, it is also likely that European livestock grazed across the activity area (Map 7 – 10). A dam has also been present in the activity area since at least 1947 (Map 7). More localised impacts to the activity area include the presence of a series of sheds in the activity area in 1947 which by 1968 had been demolished (Map 7 – 8). Between 1947 and 1968 in the north of the activity area a residential dwelling and sheds were constructed (Map 7 – 8). These are still extant today. The activity area also incorporates part of the road reserve associated with Bridge Road. This is in the north west and north east parts of the activity area. From 1947 to at least 1968 the north east part of the activity area was part of Bridge Road (Map 7 – 8). By 1978 the road axis has shifted north and what was previously road surface was now road reserve (Map 9). This previous land use across the activity area means it is likely that much of the surface, and subsurface cultural heritage material would have been disturbed, or even destroyed. In summary ground disturbance activities that have impacted the activity area include: • Clearance of original native vegetation. • Surface disturbance due to the grazing of European livestock and the ploughing of the ground for cropping.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 34 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
• Subsurface impacts of considerable depth (beyond 30cm deep) in areas associated with residential and farm infrastructure (sheds/dams) construction. • Use of parts of the activity area as part of Bridge Road, and later road reserve associated with Bridge Road.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 35 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 7: 1947 historic aerial of activity area (Landata 2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 36 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 8: 1968 historic aerial of activity area (Landata 2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 37 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 9: 1978 historic aerial of activity area (Landata 2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 38 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 10: 2001 historic aerial of activity area (Google Earth 2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 39 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
7.7 Aboriginal Places in the Geographic Region
Edward East (UCA Heritage Advisor) accessed the VAHR initially on 01 June 2020. A search was conducted for previously registered Aboriginal places within the geographic region. A search was also conducted for previous archaeological investigations undertaken within the geographic region. A further search of the VAHR database was undertaken by Edward East on 19 August 2020, in order to search a wider geographic region. This assessment found that 37 Aboriginal places have been previously recorded across the geographic region. The majority of previously recorded Aboriginal places in the geographic region consist of artefact scatters (n = 26 70%). The vast majority of the raw materials found within these places comprise silcrete, quartz and quartzite. The majority of these artefact scatters are located in close proximity water sources such as the Merri River. Close proximity to freshwater and subsistence resources offered by the river is the most likely reason to explain this site distribution. No places listed on the VAHR are located within the current activity area (Table 6 – 7). Other site types found across the geographic region consist of low-density artefact distributions (n = 6 16%), shell midden (n = 3 8%) a single earth feature (3%) and a single object collect (3%). All of these site types provide evidence of the exploitation of the geographic region for subsistence purposes (Table 7). The earth feature (VAHR 7321-0403-1 BUSHFIELD 1) is recorded as an Earth Feature and is located in close proximity to the Merri River, 500 metres to the north east of the current activity area. The earth feature is recorded as containing a midden which is recorded to have contained several types of marsupial remains, as well as a hand axe that has been radiocarbon dated (see Section 7.8.2) providing substantial evidence of the exploitation of local faunal resources by local Aboriginal peoples. The current distribution of registered Aboriginal places across the geographic region indicates that Aboriginal cultural heritage material is most likely to be found in subsurface contexts in close proximity to fresh water and is most likely to be comprised of lithic artefact scatters.
Table 6: Previously recorded VAHR places within the geographic region. Aboriginal Place Name Component Place Component Type Numbers MERRI RIVER 1 7321-0113-1 Artefact Scatter WARRNAMBOOL 1 7321-0114-1 Artefact Scatter MERRI RIVER 2 7321-0117-1 Artefact Scatter MERRI RIVER 3 DENNINGTON 7321-0118-2 Artefact Scatter OLD FARNHAM 1 7321-0218-1 Artefact Scatter ROACHE 1 7321-0347-1 Artefact Scatter ROACHE 2 7321-0348-1 Artefact Scatter ROACHE 3 7321-0349-1 Artefact Scatter ROACHE 4 7321-0350-1 Artefact Scatter SPRING ONIONS 7321-0355-1 Artefact Scatter WARRNAMBOOL GOLF COURSE 1 7321-0404-2 Artefact Scatter WOLLASTON ROAD 1 7321-0450-1 Artefact Scatter WOLLASTON ROAD 2 7321-0451-1 Artefact Scatter HARRINGTON ROAD 1 7321-0471-1 Artefact Scatter HARRINGTON ROAD 2 7321-0472-1 Artefact Scatter Wollaston Rd 1 7321-0479-1 Artefact Scatter Wollaston Rd 2 7321-0480-1 Artefact Scatter Wollaston Rd 3 7321-0481-1 Artefact Scatter Wollaston Road 4 IA 7321-0482-1 Artefact Scatter
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 40 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Wollaston Road 5 IA 7321-0483-1 Artefact Scatter Wollaston Road 3 AS 7321-0486-1 Artefact Scatter Wollaston Road 6 AS 7321-0487-1 Artefact Scatter Wollaston Rd 4 7321-0489-2 Artefact Scatter TOTE 1 7321-0115-1 Artefact Scatter JELLEY 1 7321-0116-1 Artefact Scatter Warrnambool Rail Warrnambool Shell Midden 1 7321-0513-3 Artefact Scatter BUSHFIELD 1 7321-0403-1 Earth Feature (Soil Deposit) Botanic Road LDAD 7321-0493-1-9 Low Density Artefact Distribution Woodford LDAD 7321-0504-2-3 Low Density Artefact Distribution Merrivale LDAD 1 7321-0505-2 Low Density Artefact Distribution Warrnambool Rail Warrnambool LDAD 2 7421-0244-1-19 Low Density Artefact Distribution Woodford LDAD 7321-0504-3 Low Density Artefact Distribution Warrnambool Rail Warrnambool LDAD 1 7321-0512-1 Low Density Artefact Distribution Moyjil Aboriginal Place 7421-0006-2 Object Collection DENNINGTON 7321-0003-1 Shell Midden WARRNAMBOOL GOLF COURSE 1 7321-0404-1 Shell Midden Warrnambool Rail Warrnambool Shell Midden 1 7321-0513-1 Shell Midden
Table 7: Summary of the VAHR places within the geographic region. Component Type Frequency (No) Frequency (%) Artefact Scatter 26 70% Low Density Artefact Distribution 6 (33 individual components) 16% Shell Midden 3 8% Earth Feature 1 3% Object Collection 1 3% Total 37 100%
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 41 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
7.8 Previous Studies in the Geographic Region
The results of prior archaeological studies relevant to, or conducted in the vicinity of, the present activity area, along with the current regional model of site distribution, are presented in this section. This information is reviewed in order to assess the archaeological sensitivity of the activity area and to inform the methodology of the field assessment program.
7.8.1 Regional Investigations Mulvaney (1977) wrote a prehistory of the basalt plains in which he describes a range of pre- contact Aboriginal sites indicating use of the land and resources. Mulvaney discussed the nature of Aboriginal artefacts that have been recorded across the basalt plains and use of basalt for the construction of circular huts, fish and eel traps along watercourses on the basalt plains, and oven mounds. Mulvaney noted that many sites were disturbed during the 18th and 19th centuries, and the use of land for agricultural purposes also further damaged or destroyed Aboriginal sites. There is discussion about the nature of Aboriginal trade networks across south west Victoria, including green stone aces from Mt. William, Victoria, into the Lower Darling region of NSW, and into the Northern Territory, while axes from Chatsworth, Victoria, were traded as far west as the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia. He cites Dawson (1881) describing trading occasions at Mt. Noorat, western Victoria, during which kangaroo skins, various types of stone, saplings for spears, ochre, shells and wattle gum were traded (Dawson 1881, cited in Mulvaney 1977: 430). Mulvaney also discuss the so-called Bushfield hafted grooved axe, located beneath tuff which he states is dated at 5kbp (since redated to >20kbp). Mulvaney highlighted that radiocarbon dating and aerial photography could assist in recording Aboriginal places at risk of damage or destruction. Bird and Frankel (1991) wrote a paper questioning the theory of “intensification” manifested by an increased number of late Holocene sites, and the appearance of what were perceived to be new site types. The paper discusses archaeological sites from south-west Victoria, amongst others, but focussed on this region as a range of site types (e.g. fish traps, mounds) are more prolific in this region than some other regions of south-eastern Australia. They concluded that, in their opinion, the archaeological evidence from late Holocene south-west Victoria and south- east Australia in general reflects the variability and complexity of “hunter-gatherer societies” rather than social changes leading to “intensification”. They also conclude that similar variability was likely to have occurred in response to environmental changes during the early Holocene and Pleistocene as well, but at the time of writing such evidence had not yet been revealed. Coutts et al (1977) undertook a study designed to assess the impact of European settlement on Aboriginal society. Their approach was to outline the available evidence and present hypotheses to be tested. As part of their approach, they excavated 14 sites across the western district of Victoria. These included three rock shelters, one mound site on the western side of the Grampians, five mound sites in the central western district, three so-called house sites south of Hamilton, and most relevant to the current study, two camp sites on sandy soils beside the Hopkins River. They found that in general mound sites were clustered along major drainage systems; contained a variety of faunal remains; stone implements were mainly made from locally available stone and few formal tools were present: those that were present were generally made from imported stone. This suggested that the sites were for general use, rather than special purpose sites. They noted that the mounds had been occupied after most of the soil had been deposited. They considered that no function for the mounds could be suggested but noted that the reworked soil would have facilitated excavation of pits for burials or ovens. The excavated rock shelters contained lithics, ovens and ochre. Analysis suggested that rock shelters were not used as intensively as the mounds. There was no evidence of large pits or burials, and it was evident that the occupants were hunting small animals and gathering locally available plants.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 42 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
An artefact scatter on the banks of the Hopkins River was excavated. The assemblage was similar to those in the mounds. The report also discussed a canal system near Toolondo, rock arrangement and fish trap complex near Lake Bolac, and the stone weirs near Lake Condah. In doing a comparison between pre-contact and post-contact sites in order to investigate settlement patterns, the authors noted that the literary sources give cursory information only regarding shelters, for example, and the more detailed descriptions are recorded later. Little information is available regarding the size and structure of camps. They conclude that there is some continuity between pre-contact and post-contact sites – traditional burial practices were maintained, stone tools continued to be made, albeit with decreasing frequency, and ochre, pits, ovens etc were still used. Continuity is also evident in some aspects of the lithic manufacturing industry
7.8.2 Local Investigations Several relevant cultural heritage management projects have been undertaken within 3km of the current activity area which will inform the current assessment. Keble (1947) wrote a paper on Australian Quaternary climates and migration in which he discussed Australian climates suggested of some Victorian soils that contained Aboriginal artefacts. Relevant to the current activity area is the discussion of earth feature VAHR 7321-0403 BUSHFIELD 1 located 500 metres north east of the current activity area, on the north side of the Merri River. This earth feature is recorded as containing a midden with animal bones including kangaroo, wallaby, possum, wombat, Tasmanian devil, rat, and dingo, as well as the basalt axe. The axe was located at a depth of “9 feet” on tuffaceous limestone over which stratified tuff is located, on an incised river terrace. This site dates to “at least 4kbp, possibly up to 6kbp” according to Keble (1947: 56- 58). Keble summarised the formation of the deposit as follows: Keble writes that the surface of the floodplain was at the time of his inspection 11 feet above the level of the water in the Merri River, which was 4 or 5 feet deep; the bed of the River opposite the hole in which the axe was found is about 30 feet above the level of low water at Warrnambool Bay. The time taken for the accumulation of the 9 feet (over 2.7m) of tuff covering the axe together with that taken for the valley XYD to reach maturity is the age of the axe. The flood-plain A was formed at or about the Postglacial Optimum, probably just before the rising sea-level of the Postglacial reached its maximum, and after Tower Hill had ceased to be active: the vertical erosion of the Merri River preceding its formation was contemporaneous with the concluding stages of the Tower Hill activity, “it is therefore apparent that the axe is more than 4,000 years old, and allowing for the maturing of the valley XYD, its age is perhaps 6,000 years” (Keble 1947: 57-58). Gill (1954) wrote an article regarding the use of geological evidence in Western Victoria relative to the “antiquity of Australian Aborigines.” One of the case studies involved a discussion about VAHR 7321-0403 BUSHFIELD 1, the axe and faunal bones found beneath tuff material 500 metres north-east and as referred to by Keble (above). Gill noted that this material “shows the aborigines were present when the Tower Hill volcano first became active, which is thought to be not very much more than 1,000 years ago” (Gill 1954: 84). In fact, the most recent studies indicate that the most recent eruption took place around 20,000 years ago rather than the 7,000 years suggested by earlier works. Report No. 3396. Paynter and Rhodes (2005) undertook an archaeological assessment for Wollaston Road, Warrnambool. A combination of pedestrian and vehicular survey was undertaken to investigate the activity area. The majority of surveyed areas consisted of thickly vegetated paddocks with extremely poor surface visibility. Two Aboriginal places were located, including one isolated artefact (VAHR 7321-0450) and a low-density artefact distribution (VAHR 7321-0451). The survey identified areas of high archaeological potential and noted that the most likely site types to be located within the activity area were subsurface stone artefact scatters, multiple feature sites and earth mounds. The site prediction model suggested that along the Merri River, floodplains, river terraces, ridgelines, hill slopes and dunes are the areas of highest archaeological potential. Paynter and Rhodes
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 43 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
noted that Aboriginal sites are unlikely to be located in surface contexts due to prior ground disturbance, but that the potential for intact subsurface deposits remained high. CHMP 11662. O’Reilly and McAlister (2011) undertook a CHMP in response to a proposed housing subdivision at Wollaston Road, Warrnambool, 2.8km south of the present activity area. Much of this area was previously surveyed as part of Report 3396 discussed above. The activity area comprised two parts, the first being an area of 79.9 hectares located immediately north of Merri River either side of Wollaston Road. The second part, an area of 30.5 hectares, included a series of disconnected parcels and road easements that were to be impacted by construction of water and sewerage works associated with the residential subdivision. This is 3km south of the current activity area at its’ closest point. No cultural material was located during the standard assessment; however, areas of sensitivity were identified, specifically land within 200m of the Merri River. Five new Aboriginal places were located during the complex assessment. These all consisted of subsurface artefact scatters (VAHR 7321-0450, 0486, 0482, 0483 and 0487). These were all located on the floodplain or the more elevated adjacent volcanic plains. VAHR 7321-0450 consisted of 25 artefacts, mostly quartz and silcrete, found in silty clay to a depth of 40cm, on an elevated bank of the Merri River. The majority of artefacts were located in the top 20cm and consisted of flakes, broken flakes and debitage. The place extended over an area of 200m x 20m and was assessed as being of moderate scientific significance. This place was originally recorded as an isolated surface artefact by Paynter and Rhodes (below). VAHR7321-0486 consisted of four silcrete and quartz artefacts located in the top 40cm of clayey silt soil on a low rise or basalt mound, on a river terrace. The assemblage consisted of two flakes, one broken flake and one piece of debitage, and extended over an area of approximately 25m x 10m. The place was assessed as being of moderate scientific significance. VAHR7321-0482 consisted of a single broken flake found 20-30cm in depth in silty clay. This was considered to be in a disturbed context, was located on a lowland plain and was confined to a 1mx1m test pit. It was assessed as being of low scientific significance. All three places were considered to date from the mid-late Holocene. CHMP 15259. Fiddian and Patton (2019) conducted a CHMP in response to a proposed residential subdivision at 267 Bridge Road, Woodford 950 metres north west of the current activity area. The desktop assessment identified that no Aboriginal cultural heritage places have been previously recorded within the activity area. No surface Aboriginal cultural material was located during standard assessment. A complex assessment was conducted that consisted of the hand excavation of four 1x1m test pits and ninety 50x50cm shovel test pits. One new subsurface Aboriginal place was located during the complex assessment VAHR 7321- 0504 Woodford LDAD, which comprised a low-density artefact distribution consisting of one silcrete ‘piercer’ and one quartz distal flake. The soil profile of many test pit excavations indicated that some ground disturbance had taken place within the first 20cm as a result of stock movement and previous agricultural activities. Excavations on the rise in the western section of the activity area (Paddock 4), reached depths of up to 124cm. This excavation was in sandy silt deposits and was the landform in which cultural material was located. On the other hand, excavation within the floodplain landscape ceased at much shallower depths, at times less than 20cm, as a compact, impenetrable and culturally sterile clay was reached.
7.8.3 Site Predictive Model The results of the previous local and regional studies can be used to construct a predictive site model for the geographic region and activity area. The findings of the review of previously registered places and prior studies within the geographic region are:
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 44 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
• The activity area is located within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, being within 200m of the Merri River.
• Parts of the activity area have been impacted by land clearance, construction activities and agricultural activities. This is supported by the analysis of historic aerial imagery which clearly shows the use of the activity area for agricultural purposes from at least 1947 onwards (Table 5. Maps 7 – 10).
• Previously registered Aboriginal places are concentrated on along waterways such as the Merri River across the study area geographic region.
• The most common archaeological place types in this region are subsurface stone artefact scatters.
• Dominant stone artefact types will be waste flakes, flakes, and a small component of formal tool types. These artefacts will be most commonly manufactured from silcrete and quartz.
• The activity area is considered to have a low to moderate potential for Aboriginal cultural material due to the impact of land clearance, agricultural activities, construction activities and its distance from a permanent water source.
• Widespread clearance of native vegetation makes the possibility of scarred trees in the study area low, but any mature trees located should be inspected for cultural scarring.
7.9 Conclusions from the Desktop Assessment
The desktop review has provided salient information from which areas of Aboriginal archaeological potential may be predicted and further tested through standard and complex assessments. No previously registered Aboriginal places are recorded in the current activity area. A review of previously registered sites in the region indicates a concentration of subsurface artefact scatters in close proximity to permanent water sources such as the Merri River. Proximity to water sources appears to be an influential factor in Aboriginal place location, with the frequency and density of places, particularly stone artefact scatters, decreasing with distance to potable water. Subsurface stone artefact scatter sites dominate as the likely site type, with low density artefact distributions also present in smaller numbers. Aboriginal places in the area are overwhelmingly located in a subsurface context, with the impacts of modern agricultural and construction activities a likely explanation for this; surface artefacts would have been destroyed or removed from their original locations by such invasive processes. The review of ethnographic evidence highlights the economic and cultural importance of the region to pre- and post-Contact Aboriginal people. The information suggests organised exploitation of the region. Due to the history of tree clearance, there is low potential for the location of scarred trees within the activity area. The most common lithic material types in the region are silcrete, followed by quartz and quartzite. Reviews of previously registered Aboriginal Places indicate that any sites identified are likely to date to the late Holocene. The prior land use within the activity area has been established via the analysis of historical aerial imagery. Past land use of the activity area is predominately agricultural in nature and includes the initial clearance of native vegetation followed by cropping and grazing activities. A residential dwelling and agricultural infrastructure, such as sheds, a dam and fences have been also constructed across the activity area. The north west and north east parts of the activity area have been used as part of Bridge Road and later as part of the road reserve. Based on the desktop assessment, it is considered that the activity area retains a low to moderate likelihood for the location of Aboriginal cultural heritage material in the form of lithic artefacts. The cultural heritage potential of the activity area is considered to decrease in areas of disturbance, such as at the location of the residential dwelling. Given that the desktop assessment indicates that the activity area has a low to moderate potential to contain surface and potentially subsurface Aboriginal cultural material a standard assessment is considered warranted.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 45 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
8 STANDARD ASSESSMENT
8.1 Introduction
This section outlines the aims, methods, and results of the standard assessment of the activity area undertaken on 23 March 2020 by Mark Grist (Urban Colours Archaeologist and Heritage Advisor), with assistance Stephen Chatfield and Jryran Chatfield (Eastern Maar Field Representatives). The activity area was extended to cover the immediate road reserve south of Bridge Road. This was subject to a standard assessment on the 17th September, this was directed by Edward East (UCA Heritage Advisor) with assistance from Mark Grist (UCA Heritage Advisor), Hayden Harradine (Eastern Maar field representative) and Mundara Clark (Eastern Maar field representative).
8.2 Aims of the Standard Assessment
The aims of both phases of the standard assessment was to determine the cultural heritage sensitivity of the activity area by identifying the presence of any previously unrecorded surface Aboriginal cultural heritage places or material within the activity area and also to identify areas of significant ground disturbance which have resulted from prior land use history. This information was used to inform the complex assessment testing methodology and identify areas of subsurface archaeological potential.
8.3 Methodology of the Standard Assessment
The initial standard assessment conducted on 23rd March 2020 involved three participants, Mark Grist (Urban Colours Archaeologist and Heritage Advisor), with assistance from Stephen Chatfield and Jryran Chatfield (Eastern Maar Field Representatives) walking in north to south transects with the survey team spaced at approximately 1.6m apart, with the survey team walking as a whole spaced at 5m. The activity area was extended to cover the immediate road reserve south of Bridge Road in the north east and north west parts of the activity area. This was subject to a standard assessment on the 17th September, this was directed by Edward East (UCA Heritage Advisor) with assistance from Mark Grist (UCA Heritage Advisor), Hayden Harradine (Eastern Maar field representative) and Mundara Clark (Eastern Maar field representative). The road reserve area was surveyed in with participants walking in two abreast in east west transects. A total area 205,663m2 was systematically surveyed during both phases of the standard assessment. Areas of archaeological potential were noted during the survey as well as areas of disturbance, which were unlikely to contain Aboriginal cultural material. Photographs of the activity area landform as well as the areas of disturbance and archaeological potential were taken throughout the standard assessment. Detailed notes were taken in-field to assist in the assessment of ground conditions, landform details and in the assessment of areas of disturbance. A handheld Trimble brand GPS was used to provide tracklog information and record any features or areas of archaeological potential during the standard assessment. This methodology was designed to maximise the opportunity for locating surface cultural material as well as areas of isolated exposure (Table 8. Plates 2 – 8. Map 11).
8.4 Ground Surface Visibility and Exposure
Ground surface visibility (GSV) was considered poor (<2%) across much of the activity area, due to dense grass and other vegetation. No areas of exposure were identified in either paddocks or the road reserve area of Bridge Road, with some very small areas of exposure found in close association with trees near the residential dwelling
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 46 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
in the north of the activity area. Areas of the existing dwelling and dam in the south east corner of the activity area were not accessible (Table 8).
Table 8: Effective survey coverage of the activity area.
Landform Total Area not Percentage Area Average Effective Effective Survey Activity Surveyable Surveyed Surveyed GSV (%) Survey Coverage (%) Area (m) (m) (%) (m) Coverage Hill slope 205,663m2 1,612m2 99.2% 200,812m2 2% 4016.24m2 2%
8.4.1 Standard Assessment Limitations The primary limitation to the standard assessment was the lack of GSV (<2%) noted throughout much of the activity area, associated with pasture grasses and other vegetation. Areas of disturbance were also considered a limiting factor as the likelihood of observing surface cultural material in such areas is greatly reduced. The areas of the existing dam and abandoned residential dwelling were not accessible for survey.
8.5 Standard Assessment Results
The following section outlines the results of the standard assessment and provides discussion of the landforms, areas of disturbance, areas of archaeological potential and any cultural material identified within the activity area during the assessment. The standard assessment identified one landform within the activity area; an open, grassed, south running hill slope. The hill slope consists of two agricultural paddocks that are roughly rectangular and run east to west. These paddocks are divided by a fence that is found to the south of the centre of the activity area. A small dam is found in the south eastern corner of the north paddock, which has been created via modern excavation. An area of cypress trees has been cut down. The activity area was expanded to encompass the area of road reserve immediately south of Bridge Road, in the north east and north west of the activity area. This area is located close to the crest of the hill, but still within the slope landform (Plates 1 – 12. Map 11). This south facing hill slope is a relatively exposed location to the locally prevailing southerly wind and does not provide views over the nearby Merri River, which is found some 180 metres to the north of the activity area. However, the top of the hill crest, being closest located to a permanent water source and registered Aboriginal place, was noted as an area of archaeological potential. This part of the hill slope also provided for view south facing views across the local region. Dense grass coverage obscured the majority of the activity area ground surface. No Aboriginal cultural heritage places or material was located during the standard assessment. No remnant native vegetation of sufficient age was identified within the activity area, nor were there any caves, cave entrances or rock shelters within the activity area. The geological and geomorphological character of the activity area does not allow for these landforms to be present (Map 11).
8.5.1 Areas of Disturbance Two main types of disturbance were noted during the standard assessment, reflecting impacts associated with prior land use in different locations within the activity area. Residential dwelling and associated infrastructure A moderate sized residential dwelling is found in the north of the activity area (Map 11). A small driveway provides access to the residential dwelling from Bridge Road. A garage and an area of concrete slabs are found
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 47 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
at the rear of the dwelling. The construction of this dwelling and associated structures would have caused extensive surface and subsurface disturbance across this part of the activity area (Plate 7. Map 7). Agricultural infrastructure Areas of disturbance associated with agricultural activities and infrastructure were found in specific parts of the paddocks of the activity area (Map 11). Agricultural infrastructure has been installed across these paddocks, with fences, animal troughs and a dam constructed. The construction of this infrastructure would have caused surface disturbance at all these locations. The construction of the dam, located in the south east corner of the north paddock of the activity area, would have caused significant subsurface disturbance at its location (Plate 4, 8. Map 11). Road infrastructure Areas of disturbance were noted across the road reserve associated with Bridge Road. In the north west an existing subsurface Telstra cable was located running along the entire axis of this area. This area was also being utilised as a gutter for Bridge Road. A storm water drain has also been constructed in this part of the activity area. In the north east of this part of the activity area the subsurface Telstra cable was also detected. Parts of the north east road reserve area did not appear natural and was likely built up as embankment to facilitate the operations of Bridge Road (Plate 9 – 12).
8.5.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Identified During the Standard Assessment No Aboriginal cultural heritage places or material was located within the activity area as a result of the standard assessment.
8.5.3 Areas of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Likelihood During the standard assessment, one area of archaeological potential was noted, in the north of the activity area. This was the top of the slope within the activity area. This part of the activity aera is the closet location to the Merri River, provides views around the surrounding area and is also the part of the activity area that is covered by the area of cultural heritage sensitivity. Other parts of the activity area were deemed to have a lower archaeological potential, being located on the middle to lower slope of the hill and located further away from the Merri River (Map 11).
8.6 Standard Assessment Conclusions
The standard assessment confirmed that the activity area comprises one landform, being a gentle south running hill slope. No new Aboriginal places or Aboriginal cultural material was located within the activity area as a result of the standard assessment. However, given that much of the activity area could not be effectively surveyed as a result of very poor GSV, it was determined that further investigation, by way of complex assessment, was required for this CHMP. An area of archaeological potential was noted as the top of the hill slope, as it was the closest located part of the activity area to a permanent water source, the Merri River, and a registered Aboriginal place while also providing for south facing views across the local region (Map 9). The complex assessment would also further establish the extent of subsurface disturbance that had occurred within the activity area. The north west road reserve should be considered highly disturbed due to the location of road and Telstra infrastructure, subsurface testing here is not warranted, nor possible due to the location of subsurface Telstra infrastructure. The Eastern Maar field representatives present expressed their approval of the conduct of both phases of the standard assessment conducted. A summary of the results of the standard assessment are as follows:
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 48 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
• The surface of the activity area has been affected by its long-term use for agricultural and road infrastructure purposes. • Localised parts of the activity area have been subject to subsurface disturbance, associated with a dwelling and the road reserve area associated with Bridge Road. • The standard assessment was unable to fully quantify the level of subsurface disturbance across the activity area; there remains the possibility of subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage. A complex assessment was decided as the only way to quantify the level and nature of the subsurface disturbance within the activity area. • No new Aboriginal places or surface material was located within the activity area during the standard assessment. • One area of archaeological potential was noted, the top of the hill slope, located in the north of the activity area.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 49 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 1: North view from centre of the activity area Plate 3: West view of agricultural infrastucure showing gentle south running hill slope landform located on central west border of activity area (Mark (Mark Grist 23/03/20). Grist 23/03/20).
Plate 2: West view from south east corner of north Plate 4: East view of dam located in south east paddock, dam visible in distance (Mark Grist corner of north paddock (Mark Grist 23/03/20). 23/03/20).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 50 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 5: South view of activity area southern border Plate 7:North view of partly demolished residential (Mark Grist 23/03/20). dwelling (Mark Grist 23/03/20).
Plate 6: South facing view from activity area north Plate 8: South view of agricultural fence running border showing gentle south running hill slope across centre of activity area (Mark Grist 23/03/20). landform (Mark Grist 23/03/20).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 51 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 9: East view of road reserve of Bridge Road in Plate 11: West view of road reserve of Bridge Road in north west of activity area, note Telstra infrastructure north east of activity area (Edward East 17/09/20). (Edward East 17/09/20).
Plate 10: East view of road reserve of Bridge Road in Plate 12: West view of road reserve of Bridge Road in north west of activity area, note drainage north east of activity area (Edward East 17/09/20). infrastructure (Edward East 17/09/20).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 52 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 11: Standard assessment results.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 53 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
9 COMPLEX ASSESSMENT
This section outlines the aims, methods, and results of the subsurface testing program of the activity area undertaken. An initial complex assessment was undertaken from 09 – 12 June 2020 by Edward East (Urban Colours Senior Archaeologist and Heritage Advisor), in consultation with Stephen Chatfield and Jryran Chatfield (Eastern Maar Field Representatives). An additional phase of complex assessment was undertaken on the 17th September 2020 this was directed by Edward East (UCA Heritage Advisor) with assistance from Mark Grist (UCA Heritage Advisor), Hayden Harradine (Eastern Maar field representative) and Mundara Clark (Eastern Maar field representative).
9.1 Aims of the Complex Assessment
The aims of the complex assessment were to: • Establish the level of subsurface disturbance across the activity area. • Determine the possible presence of subsurface cultural heritage in areas with poor GSV identified during the standard assessment. • Determine the possible presence of cultural heritage material in the areas of cultural heritage sensitivity within the activity area; and • Establish the subsurface stratigraphic composition of landforms within the activity area.
9.2 Methodology of the Complex Assessment
A combination of three hand excavated 1x1m stratigraphic test pits (TP) twenty-four 50 x 50cm hand excavated shovel test pits (STPs), and nine 2x1 meter machine excavated test pits (MPs) were excavated across the activity area. The subsurface testing was undertaken across the upper, middle, and lower slope of the south running hill slope landform that characterises the activity area. Testing was concentrated within the part of the activity area noted as having archaeological potential. Two 1x1m test pits were located on the upper slope and one located on the lower slope. A grid pattern of 50x50cm shovel test pits were excavated cross the entirety of the activity area. The nine 2x1m machine test pits were excavated across the upper, middle, and lower slopes of the activity area. An additional 1x1m test pit and two 50x50cm shovel test pits were excavated in the road reserve area of Bridge Road, in the north east of the activity area. Eastern Maar field representatives present were consulted prior to and during the complex assessment and approved of all aspects of the assessment conducted. No major obstacles were encountered during the complex assessment. No Aboriginal cultural heritage was located during the complex assessment (Map 12). All test pits were excavated in 100mm spits, until the underlying subsoil, comprising a sterile layer was reached. All excavated soils were screened using 5mm aperture sieves. Images were taken at the base of each spit and soil samples were recovered from each stratigraphic horizon for further post-excavation analysis. Soil colour and pH were subsequently recorded during this later analysis. The stratigraphic section of all excavated test pits were photographed and illustrated. All test pits locations were recorded utilising a Trimble brand handheld GPS. Range poles are shown in 200mm increments.
9.2.1 1 x 1m Test Pit Program Three 1 x 1 meter stratigraphic test pits (TP) were excavated as part of the complex assessment (Map 12). All test pits were excavated by hand in 100 mm spits using hand tools, until the underlying B2 horizon (subsoil), comprising a culturally sterile deposit of heavy clay was reached. All excavated soils were hand screened using
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 54 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
a 5mm aperture sieve. All sieved deposits were investigated for cultural heritage material. Images were taken at the base of each spit and soil samples were recovered from each stratigraphic horizon for further post- excavation analysis. Soil colour and pH were subsequently recorded during this later analysis. All 1x1m test pits were recorded using a Trimble brand handheld GPS. The stratigraphic section of each 1 x 1 meter test pit was photographed and illustrated. Two 1x1 meter test pits were located in the north of the activity area, on the upper hill slope, within the identified area of archaeological potential. One 1 x 1 meter test pit was located on the lower hill slope, in the south west of the activity area. The 1 x 1 meter test pits were located in parts of the activity area deemed to be the least disturbed, on the basis of distance from existing structures and infrastructure. They were also placed in locations that appeared best able provide a representative sample of the subsurface geomorphology of the activity area, away from areas of construction events and agricultural infrastructure primarily. The geomorphology recorded during the 1 x 1 meter test pit program conformed to the findings of Section 7.2.2. A heavy deposit of clay with frequent amounts of small to medium sized non-cultural basalt rocks was recorded in all test pits excavated. On the basis of the established age range of this clay, the Pliocene epoch, excavations were concluded after testing into this deposit for some depth. Test pit 1x1 A excavated a deeper sondage into this sterile deposit of clay, in the south east corner of the pit, to further quantify the geomorphology of the activity area. A sondage is a well-established method of archaeological excavation whereby a small test excavation is made within in an existing test pit or trench to further investigate the stratigraphy of a site (Hester R. et al. 2009: 73). This sondage confirmed that the deposit of heavy clay continued with depth and an increasing volume of small to medium non-cultural basalt rocks was encountered (Figure 4). The indurated nature of this deposit meant that testing of this deposit was possible for only a shallow depth. The 1 x 1 meter test pits excavated did not show signs of disturbance, with a natural geomorphological deposit apparent with no modern inclusions, such as rubbish. Eastern Maar representatives present in field were consulted prior to and during 1 x1 meter test pit excavation program and expressed their approval of its conduct. No Aboriginal cultural material was recovered from any of the 1 x 1 meter test pits excavated (Plates 13 – 18. Table 9. Figure 4. Map 12).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 55 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 13: South view of TP 1x1 A prior to excavation Plate 15: South view of TP 1x1m A at excavation (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020). conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020).
Plate 14: South view of TP 1x1m B at excavation Plate 16: South view of TP 1x1m C at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020). conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 56 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 17: South east west view of TP 1x1 D at Plate 18: South view of TP 1x1 D at excavation excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East conclusion (Photo: Edward East 17/09/2020). 17/09/2020).
Table 9: Location and description of all 1x1 meter stratigraphic test pits.
1x1m Test Pit A Location (GDA94 Zone 54) Easting 630529.2513 Northing 5757267.59 1x1 A located on upper slope of hill in north of activity area. Description Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Sondage excavated in south east pit corner to further investigate sterile layer. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. 1x1m Test Pit B Location (GDA94 Zone 54) Easting 630263.3717 Northing 5756849.127 1x1 B located on lower hill slope in south of activity area. Description Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8 Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 200mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. 1x1m Test Pit C Location (GDA94 Zone 54) Easting 350910 Northing 5778452 1x1 C located on upper slope of hill in north of activity area. Description Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 57 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. 1x1m Test Pit D Location (GDA94 Zone 54) Easting 630652.1856 Northing 5757194.921 1x1 D located in north east of activity area in Bridge Road reserve area. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8 Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-220mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 220 – 280mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Basalt floater located in south east corner of pit.
Figure 4: TP A stratigraphic profile at excavation conclusion. A sondage was excavated into sterile deposit of clay in SE pit corner to further establish activity area geomorphology.
9.2.2 50 x 50cm Shovel Test Pit Program Twenty-two 50 x 50cm shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated as part of the complex assessment (Map 12). All shovel test pits were excavated by hand in 100mm spits using hand tools, until the underlying B2 horizon (subsoil), comprising a culturally sterile deposit of heavy clay was reached. All excavated soils were hand screened using a 5mm aperture sieve. All sieved deposits were investigated for cultural heritage material. Images were taken at the base of each spit and soil samples were recovered from each stratigraphic horizon for further post-excavation analysis. Soil colour and pH were subsequently recorded during this later analysis. All 50 x 50cm shovel test pits were recorded using a Trimble brand handheld GPS. The stratigraphic section of each 50 x 50cm shovel test pit was photographed and illustrated. The twenty-two excavated STPs were spaced at 100m apart in north to south running transects, four transects were excavated across the activity area. The 50 x 50cm shovel test pit program was also designed so as to locate any subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage material and to obtain stratigraphic data from across the activity area as well as establishing levels of subsurface disturbance across the activity area. Several 50 x 50cm shovel test pits were concentrated in the area of archaeological potential in the north of the activity area (STPs 1,
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 58 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
16 – 22. Map 12). The geomorphology recorded during the 50 x 50cm shovel test pit program conformed to the findings of Section 7.2.2. A deposit of heavy clay with frequent amounts of small to medium sized non-cultural basalt rocks was recorded in all shovel test pits excavated. On the basis of the established age range of this clay, excavations were concluded after testing into this deposit for some depth. The indurated nature of this deposit meant that testing of this deposit was possible for only a shallow depth. The 50 x 50cm shovel test pits excavated did not show signs of disturbance, with a natural geomorphological deposit apparent with no modern inclusions, such as rubbish. Eastern Maar representatives present in field were consulted prior to and during 50 x 50cm test pit excavation program and expressed their approval of its conduct. No Aboriginal cultural material was recovered from any of the 50 x 50cm test pits excavated (Plates 19 – 26. Table 10. Figure 5. Map 12).
Plate 19: South west view of STP transect program in Plate 20: South view of STP 2 at excavation centre of activity area (Photo: Edward East conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020). 09/06/2020). .
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 59 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 21: South view of STP 10 at excavation Plate 23: North view of STP 12 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020). conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020).
Plate 22: South view of STP 15 at excavation Plate 24: South view of STP 22 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020). conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020)
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 60 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 25: South view of STP 23 at excavation Plate 26: East view of STP 24 at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 17/09/2020). conclusion (Photo: Edward East 17/06/2020
Table 10: Location and description of the 50 x 50 cm shovel test pits.
STP 1 STP 2 STP 3 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630618.2658 Easting/Northing: 630599.3454 Easting/Northing: 630492.1304 5757194.708 5757125.321 5757097.481 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 61 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
STP 4 STP 5 STP 6 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630511.2732 Easting/Northing: 630468.0324 Easting/Northing: 630580.26 5757197.965 5757007.565 5757031.555 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. rocks. rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 350mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 350mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. STP 7 STP 8 STP 9 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630558.911 Easting/Northing: 630449.2926 Easting/Northing: 630542.6009 5756945.733 5756927.686 5756837.171 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. STP 10 STP 11 STP 12 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630439.6621 Easting/Northing: 630340.708 Easting/Northing: 630395.1668 5756829.884 5756851.825 5757271.638 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 250mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 400mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 62 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
STP 13 STP 14 STP 15 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630387.8612 Easting/Northing: 630379.3459 Easting/Northing: 630347.2678 5757178.641 5757044.702 5756941.664 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 400mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. STP 16 STP 17 STP 18 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630341.7167 Easting/Northing: 630278.1361 Easting/Northing: 630301.5415 5757387.16 5756945.911 5757055.421 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. rocks. rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 250mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 200mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. STP 19 STP 20 STP 21 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630325.0052 Easting/Northing: 630335.1763 Easting/Northing: 630427.2788 5757185.703 5757290.824 5757318.5 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey Dry, friable to dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. rocks. rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-200mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 200mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 170 – 180mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 260mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 63 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
STP 22 STP 23 STP 24 Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630436.1059 Easting/Northing: 630436.1059 Easting/Northing: 630436.1059 5757291.481 5757291.481 5757291.481 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-200mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 250mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 200 – 290mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 200 – 260mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks.
Figure 5: STP 22 stratigraphic profile at excavation conclusion.
9.2.3 2 x1m Machine Excavated Test Pit Program Nine 2x1 meter machine test pits (MPs) were excavated across the activity area (Map 12). The 2x1m machine test pit program was planned to locate any subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage, to obtain stratigraphic data from across the activity area and establish levels of disturbance across the activity area. All the machine test pits were in 100 mm spits, until the underlying B2 horizon (subsoil), comprising a culturally sterile deposit of heavy clay was reached. Images were taken at the base of each spit and soil samples were recovered from each stratigraphic horizon for further post-excavation analysis. Soil colour and pH were subsequently recorded during this later analysis. The stratigraphic section of all excavated machine test pits were photographed and illustrated. All machine test pits locations were recorded utilising a Trimble brand handheld GPS. Range poles are shown in 20cm increments.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 64 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
All excavated soils were screened using 5mm mechanical aperture sieve, powered by a diesel generator, and transported from each pit location via a trailer and 4x4 vehicle. All sieved deposits were investigated for cultural heritage material. A two-ton Wacker Neuson brand Tracked Conventional Tail Excavator with a 1m x 500mm deep straight edge bucket undertook the machine excavation works. The excavator was operated by Turlough McCooey an qualified excavator operator employed by FMG Group Pty Ltd, a civil excavation works company that regularly assists in cultural heritage projects across Victoria. Edward East (Urban Colours Senior Archaeologist and Heritage Advisor) supervised all aspects of the machine excavation program. The machine pits were excavated on an opportunistic basis, but targeted the upper, middle, and lower slope of the activity area, with three machine pits excavated across these parts of the activity area. The area of archaeological potential featured a more concentrated testing pattern. The geomorphology recorded during the 2x1m machine test pit program conformed to the findings of Section 7.2.2. A deposit of heavy clay with frequent amounts of small to medium sized non-cultural basalt rocks was recorded in all machine test pits excavated. On the basis of the established age range of this clay, excavations were concluded after testing into this deposit for some depth. The indurated nature of this deposit meant that testing of this deposit was possible for only a shallow depth. The 2x1m machine test pits excavated did not show signs of disturbance, with a natural geomorphological deposit apparent with no modern inclusions, such as rubbish. Eastern Maar representatives present in field were consulted prior to and during machine excavation program and expressed their approval of its conduct. No Aboriginal cultural material was recovered from any of the machine test pits (Plates 27 – 32. Table 11. Figure 6. Map 12).
Plate 27: North facing view of MP 2x1m A at Plate 28: South view of MP 2x1m A at excavation excavation conclusion ((Photo: Edward East conclusion (Photo: Edward East 11/06/2020). 11/06/2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 65 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Plate 29: North facing view of MP D at excavation Plate 31:East view of excavation of MP G (Photo: conclusion (Photo: Edward East 09/06/2020). Edward East 12/06/2020).
Plate 30: South view of STP 15 at excavation Plate 32: South view of MP G at excavation conclusion (Photo: Edward East 11/06/2020). conclusion (Photo: Edward East 12/06/2020).
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 66 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Table 11: Location and description of the 2 x 1 meter machine test pits.
MP 2x1m A MP 2x1m B MP 2x1m C Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630491.129 Easting/Northing: 630377.7351 Easting/Northing: 630435.5376 5757291.358 5757360.509 5757101.867 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 250mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 250mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. MP 2x1m D MP 2x1m E MP 2x1m F Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630508.0083 Easting/Northing: 630569.305 Easting/Northing: 630312.8105 5756934.973 5757222.373 5756958.465 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100 mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100 mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100 mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 200mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 200mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 200mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. MP 2x1m G MP 2x1m H MP 2x1m I Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Location (GDA94 Zone 54): Easting/Northing: 630485.5548 Easting/Northing: 630385.9959 Easting/Northing: 630303.5171 5756812.684 5756820.617 5756831.24 Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100 mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100 mm. Context 1: A1 horizon: 0-100 mm. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR3/2. pH 8. Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown Dry, friable to firm dark reddish brown clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 clayey silty with a small humic layer (50 mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium mm). Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. basalt rocks. basalt rocks. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Context 2: B1 horizon: 100-180mm. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/1. pH 8. Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate Very dark grey firm silty clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 250mm. Context 3: B2 horizon: 180 – 300mm. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Munsell: 5YR4/2. pH 8. Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate Very dark grey indurated clay. Moderate amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks. amounts of small/medium basalt rocks.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 67 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Figure 6: MP A stratigraphic profile at excavation conclusion.
9.3 Complex Assessment Results
A combination of four hand excavated 1x1m stratigraphic test pits (TP) twenty-four 50 x 50cm hand excavated shovel test pits (STPs), and nine 2x1 meter machine excavated test pits (MPs) were excavated across the activity area. The subsurface testing was undertaken across the upper, middle, and lower slope of the south running hill slope landform that characterises the activity area. Testing was concentrated within the part of the activity area noted as having archaeological potential (Map 8). Eastern Maar representatives present in field were consulted prior to and during the complex assessment and expressed their approval of its conduct. No Aboriginal cultural material was recovered from any of the excavated test pits The geomorphology recorded during the complex assessment conformed to the findings of Section 7.2.2. A deposit of heavy clay with frequent amounts of small to medium sized basalt rocks was recorded in all test pits excavated. On the basis of the established age range of this clay, dated to the Pliocene era between two to five million years ago, all test pit excavations were concluded after testing into this deposit for some depth (VRO Online 2020: Unit 6.1.4). This soil profile type was entirely uniform across the activity area. Such soil deposits are associated with the volcanic activity that defines much of the geology and geomorphology of the western districts of Victoria (VRO Online 2020: Unit 6.1.1). The subsurface testing throughout the activity area has shown that the underlying B1 – B2 horizons comprises increasing clay to a considerable depth, as per the soil mapping conducted by the department of Agriculture Victoria. This was further confirmed by the excavation of a sondage in 1x1m TP A. This deposit of thick clay is a reflection of the more heavily weathered nature of these soils and, by association, the deep age of the underlying deposits. It is for this reason that the immediate underlying B horizon across the activity area is considered culturally sterile. Nevertheless, the immediate upper section of the underlying sterile B horizon was excavated to some extent during the complex assessment (Table 9 – 11). The indurated nature of this deposit meant that testing of this deposit was possible for only a shallow depth. Given the geomorphological nature of the activity area and the more recent impacts that have occurred as a result of the land use, it is considered that cultural material would only be present within shallow topsoil contexts and would not be located in situ of its original depositional location. It is likely that the agricultural paddocks of the activity area were subject to ploughing at some point in the past, however the geomorphological deposit recorded appeared relatively undisturbed. The construction of a dwelling, dam and fencing at specific locations within the activity area has caused some localised disturbance areas. Areas associated with road reserve of Bridge Road have been subject to considerable ground disturbance in the
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 68 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
past, however the test pits excavated in the north east of the activity area displayed an undisturbed geomorphological profile. No significant limitations to the testing program conducted were encountered during the complex assessment.
9.4 Complex Assessment Conclusions
The results of the subsurface testing program have shown that the predominant soil type across the activity area consists of a Pliocene era deposit of pallid kaolinitic clay. No Aboriginal cultural material was found in any subsurface contexts within the activity area. Past investigations within the region have demonstrated that Aboriginal places and cultural material are largely found in close proximity to water courses. The relative distance of the activity area from water sources suggests the activity area was not a focal point for seasonal occupation and is therefore unlikely to contain significant archaeological deposits. Given the level of assessment undertaken it is very unlikely that any Aboriginal places are located within the activity area. It is likely that the past and ongoing use of the activity area for agricultural purposes has impacted particularly the surface and, to a more limited extent, the subsurface integrity of the soils present, but significant ground disturbance was not recorded in any of the test pits excavated. Eastern Maar field representatives discussed the conduct and results of both phases of complex assessment following their completion. The Eastern Maar representatives present for both phases of the complex assessment expressed their approval of the conduct of the complex assessment. The complex assessment undertaken has established that the activity area has a very low potential for the presence of Aboriginal cultural heritage places, and it is therefore unlikely that any cultural material will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. The subsurface testing program was able to achieve all of the aims of the complex assessment: • The geomorphology and stratigraphy of the activity area was investigated and established. • The levels of subsurface disturbance across the activity area were investigated and quantified. • The activity area was systematically investigated for the presence of subsurface Aboriginal cultural material; with none being located in any of the excavated test pits.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 69 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Map 12: Complex assessment results.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 70 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
10 DETAILS OF ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE ACTIVITY AREA
No Aboriginal cultural heritage material was located within the activity area.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 71 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
11 CONSIDERATION OF S.61 MATTERS
In accordance with Section 61 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 an assessment must be made as to whether the proposed activity will be conducted in a way that avoids harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage or be conducted in a way that minimises harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage. The purpose of the Act is to provide for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria. In the first instance, harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage should be avoided. This may be achieved through appropriate management strategies (or specific measures) in relation to the Aboriginal Places and the activity, the use of protective fencing during construction or restricting access, in addition to cultural awareness training for contractors. In the second instance, harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage must be minimised. This may be achieved through re-aligning infrastructure, locating public open space areas over cultural values (if appropriate) or using less invasive construction methods. The final resort is the salvage of cultural heritage where appropriate. This CHMP has undertaken desktop and a standard assessment in order to investigate the nature and extent of any Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the Activity area and to mitigate the risks to these Aboriginal Places through appropriate management strategies.
1.1 Can Harm to Identified Cultural Heritage Places be Avoided? The proposed activity will not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage places as there were no Aboriginal cultural heritage places identified within the Activity area.
1.2 Can Harm to Identified Cultural Heritage Places be Minimised? No specific measures are required as no Aboriginal cultural heritage material was identified.
1.3 Are Specific Measures Needed for the Management of Identified Cultural Heritage Places? No specific measures are required as no Aboriginal cultural heritage material was identified.
1.4 Are There Particular Contingency Plans That Might be Necessary? Processes to be followed in relation to disputes, delays and other obstacles are outlined in the management conditions in Part 1. Procedures are outlined for factors that may affect the conduct of the activity. These include procedural guidelines in the event that suspected human remains are discovered, as well as safety requirements.
1.5 What Custody and Management Arrangements Might be Needed? The custody and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage are addressed in Section 2 of this CHMP.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 72 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
12 REFERENCES
Aboriginal Victoria. 20120. Guide to Preparing a Management Plan. Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. (Version Amended August 2016), Aboriginal Victoria. Australian ICOMOS. 1999. The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter). Revised edition, Australian ICOMOS, Brisbane. Barwick, D. 1984. Mapping the Past: An Atlas of Victorian Clans, 1835-1904, Part 1, Aboriginal History 8(1-2): 101- 131. Beavis, B (ed.). 1993. Sliding Gunter: An Appreciation of Early Warrnambool. Warrnambool: Philprint Pty Ltd. Bird, C. and D. Frankel, 1991. Chronology and explanation in western Victoria and south-east South Australia. In Archaeology in Oceania 26: 1-16. Bird E. C. F. 1993. The Coast of Victoria. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Birch, W. D. (ed.) 2003 Geology of Victoria Geological Society of Australia. Special Publication 23 pg. 842. Broome, R. 2005. Aboriginal Victoria: A History Since 1800. Allen & Unwin. New South Wales. Burke, H. & C. Smith, 2004.The archaeologist’s field handbook. Crow’s Nest NSW, Allen and Unwin. Cannon, M. (ed) 1983. The Aborigines in Port Phillip, 1835-1839. Historical Records of Victoria, Foundation Series, Vol. 2a. Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne. Christopher. S, Verhoeven, G. Doneus, M. Draganits, E. 2018. Surfaces from the Visual Past: Recovering High- Resolution Terrain Data from Historic Aerial Imagery for Multitemporal Landscape Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Volume 25, pages 611–642. Clark, I. 1989. A guerrilla base camp in the Eumeralla Aboriginal War in S.W. Victoria (1840s). Report to the Victorian Tourism Commission. Clark, I.D. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800– 1900. Monash Publications in Geography No. 37. Clark I, 1998, The Journals of George Augustus Robinson, Chief Protector, Port Phillip Aboriginal Protectorate, Vol Two: 1 October 1840-31 August 1841. Heritage Matters, Melbourne. Coutts, P., D. Witter and D. Parsons, 1977. Impact of European Settlement on Aboriginal Society in Western Victoria. In Records of the Victorian Archaeological Survey No. 4, pp. 17-58. Cochrane G. Fuhrer, E. Rotherham J. Willis, 1968. Australian Flora in Colour: Flowers and Plants of Victoria. A H & A W Reed, Sydney. Critchett, J. 1990. A Distant Field of Murder: Western District Frontiers 1834-1848. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Dawson, J. 1881. Australian Aborigines: the languages and customs of several tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria. Robertson, Melbourne. Fiddian, J. Patton, K. 2019. Bridge Road Rural Subdivision, Woodford, Victoria 3281. CHMP 15259 for Andrew Anderson. Gill, E. 1953. Geological Evidence in Western Victoria Relative to the Antiquity of the Australian Aborigines. In Memoirs of the National Museum Melbourne 18, pp. 25-92.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 73 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Gott, B. 1983.Murnong – Microserisscapigera: a study of a staple food of Victorian Aborigines. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:2-18. Hester, R. Shafer, H. Feder, K. 2009. Field Methods in Archaeology. Routledge. New York. Hiscock, P. 2008. The Archaeology of Ancient Australia. Routledge. London & New York. Keble, R. A. 1947. Notes on Australian Quaternary Climates and Migration. Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria 15, pp. 28- 81. Kiddle, M. 1963. Men of Yesteryear: a Social History of the Western District of Victoria 1834-1890. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Land Conservation Council (LCC). 1973. Report on the Melbourne Study Area. Land Conservation Council: Melbourne. Land Conservation Council, 1991. Melbourne Area, District 2 Review, Descriptive Report. Land Conservation Council. McAndrew, J. Marsden, M. 1973. Regional guide to Victorian geology. School of Geology, University of Melbourne. Mulvaney, D.J. 1977. Prehistory of the Basalt Plains. In Royal Society of Victoria, vol. 77, pp. 427-432. O'Callaghan, L. 2004. A Warrnambool Timeline and a Short History of Warrnambool. Warrnambool: Warrnambool and District Historical Society. O’Reilly, S. R. McAlister, R. 2011. Wollaston Road, Warrnambool. Housing Subdivision. CHMP 11662 for Graeme Rodger, Rodger Constructions Pty Ltd and Peter Wilson, Wannon Region Water Corporation. Orth, K. King, R. 1990. The Geology of Tower Hill. Department of Industry, Victoria. Osburne, R. 1887. The History of Warrnambool, Capital of the Western Ports of Victoria, from 1847 (when the First Government Land Sales Took Place) Up to the End of 1886. Chronicle printing Company. Paynter, N. and D. Rhodes, 2005. An Archaeological Assessment Wollaston Road, Warrnambool. Report for Earth Tech. Powell, J. M. 1996. Historical Geography. In Land Conservation Council 1996 Historic Places Special Investigation: South Western Victoria Descriptive Report, Land Conservation Council, Melbourne pp 79–100. Presland, G. (ed), 1977. Journals of George Augustus Robinson March – May 1841. Records of the Victorian Archaeology Survey No. 6 Presland, G. 1994. Aboriginal Melbourne. The Lost Land of the Kulin People. McPhee Gribble Publishers, Victoria. Townrow, K. 1997. An Archaeological Survey of Sealing and Whaling Sites in Victoria. Heritage Victoria and Australian Heritage Commission. Schell, P, 1995. An Archaeological Survey of the Hopkins River, A Report to the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Webb, C. 1995. The identification and documentation of silcrete quarries. A report to AAV, funded by the National Estates Grant Program and the Heritage Commission. Williams, E. 1984. Documentation and Archaeological Investigation of an Aboriginal ‘Village’ Site in South- western Victoria. Aboriginal History 8(2): 173–88. Yang, Y. Shang, S. Xing, X. 2014. A review of historical reconstruction methods of land use/land cover. Journal of Geographical Sciences.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 74 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Zola, N. and Gott, B. 1992. Koorie plants, Koorie people: traditional Aboriginal food, fibre and healing plants of Victoria. Koorie Heritage Trust. Melbourne. Websites Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements Database 2020: Framlingham Aboriginal Reserve https://www.atns.net.au/agreement.asp?EntityID=1032 Agriculture Victoria, Victorian Resources Online 2020: 6.1.1 Eruption points; maars, scoria cones and lava shields, including associated ash and scoria deposits (Lake Purrumbete, Mt. Elephant, Mt. Cottrell): http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_6.1.1 6.1.4 Plains with well-developed drainage and deep regolith (Cressy) http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_6.1.4 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning: https://www2.delwp.vic.gov.au/ Google Earth: https://www.google.com/earth/ Landata Online: https://www.landata.vic.gov.au/ Victorian Places 2020: Bushfield https://www.victorianplaces.com.au/bushfield#:~:text=Bushfield%20is%20a%20rural%20locality,a%20grazing%2 0and%20dairying%20area. Victorian Places 2020: Warrnambool https://www.victorianplaces.com.au/warrnambool Victorian Heritage Register 2020: HO151 https://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/69877 Victorian Heritage Database 2020: Nestles Factory https://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/69882
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 75 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Appendix 1: Notice of Intent
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 76 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 77 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Appendix 2: RAP Notice to Decline to Evaluate
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 78 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Appendix 3: Glossary
Archaeology: The study of the material remains of the human past. Archaeological site: A place/location of either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal origin that contains material remains relating to the human past Artefact: Any product made by human hands or caused to be made through human actions. Artefact scatter: A surface scatter of stone artefacts is defined as being the presence of items of cultural material within a given area. Backed blade (geometric microlith): Backing is the process by which one or more margins contain consistent retouch opposite to the sharp working edge. A backed blade is a blade flake that has been abruptly retouched along one or more margins opposite the sharp working edge. Backed pieces include backed blades and geometric microliths. Backed blades are a feature of the Australian Small Tool Tradition dating from between 5,000 and 1,000 years ago in southern Australia (Mulvaney 1975). Blade: A long parallel sided flake from a specially prepared core. Blade flakes retain observable and complete fracture planes, platform, lateral margins and termination and are twice as long as they are wide. A broken blade is any stone artefact retaining partial diagnostic features of a blade. Bipolar: A core or a flake which, presumably, has been struck on an anvil. That is, the core from which the flake has been struck has been rotated before the flake has been struck off. Bifacial platforms often indicate that the flake has come off a heavily worked core. BP: Before Present. The present is defined as 1950. Core: An artefact from which flakes have been detached using a hammerstone. Core types include blade, single platform, multiplatform and bipolar forms. These artefacts exhibit a series of negative flake scars, each of which represents the removal of a flake. Cortex: Original or natural (unflaked) surface of a stone. This may be further divided into nodule, pebble and terrestrial cortex indicating the original source of the material. Ethnography: The scientific description of living cultures. Flake: Broken flake: Any stone retaining partial diagnostic features of a flake Complete/whole flake: An artefact exhibiting a ventral surface (where the flake was originally connected to the core), dorsal surface (the surface that used to be part of the exterior of the core), platform, termination and bulb of percussion. Distal flake: Any flake on which the breakage removes the platform but retains the termination Proximal flake: Any flake on which the breakage removes the termination but retains the platform. Primary flake: The first flakes struck off a core in order to create a platform from which other flakes can then be struck. Secondary flaking/retouch: Secondary working of a stone artefact after its manufacture. This was often done to resharpen stone tools after use, or in the production of formal tool types such as blade flakes and scrapers. Focal platform: This is a term used to describe the shape of the platform on a flake. A focal platform is narrower than the body of the flake. Focal platform flakes are produced when flakes are struck off near the edge of the platform on a core.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 79 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Geometric microlith: Artefacts less than 80 mm in maximum dimension which are backed at one or other end, sometimes at both ends, and sometimes on one lateral margin as well, the result being a form that is symmetrical around its transverse axis. Hammerstone: A cobble or cobble fragment exhibiting pitting and abrasion as a result of percussion. Hearth: Usually a subsurface feature found eroding out of a river or creek bank or in a sand dune – it indicates a place where Aboriginal people cooked food. The remains of a hearth are usually identifiable by the presence of charcoal and sometimes clay balls (like brick fragments) and hearth stones. Remains of burnt bone or shell are sometimes preserved within a hearth. Historic site: Sites/areas that contain extant (standing) remains of pre-1950 non-Aboriginal occupation. Historic sites may or may not also contain archaeological remains (Aboriginal and/or historic). Holocene, recent or postglacial period: The time from the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age (c. 10,300 BP) to the present day. Implement: A general term for tools, weapons etc. made by people. Microlith: Small (1–3 cm long) stone tools with evidence of retouch. Includes ‘Bondi Points’ segment, scrapers, backed blades, triangles and trapezoids. In situ: Refers to cultural material that is discovered as being undisturbed and considered to be in its original context. That is, material which, when identified is considered to be in the same location as when the site was abandoned. Lithic: Anything made of stone. Pleistocene: The dates for the beginning and end of the Pleistocene generally correspond with the last Ice Age. That is from 3.5 to 1.3 million years ago. The period ends with the gradual retreat of the ice sheets, which reached their present conditions around 10,300 BP. Retouch: Scalar: Shallow scale like scars on margin with feather terminations, usually small rounded scars. Step: Small, abrupt flake scars on margin, with step terminations. Rock shelter/cave: These are sites that are located within a rock shelter/overhang or cave. The archaeological deposits within such sites can vary considerably but are often predominantly lithic. Depending on their location, the archaeological deposits may also include midden deposits of shellfish, fish or terrestrial fauna. Due to the often undisturbed deposits at these sites, they are potentially very valuable sites and are generally considered of high scientific significance. Instances where rock shelter sites also possess artwork on the stone walls are considered rock shelters/art sites combined. Scarred tree: Scars on trees may be the result of removal of strips of bark by Aborigines for the manufacture of utensils, canoes or for shelter; or resulting from small notches chopped into the bark to provide toe and hand holds for climbers after possums, koalas and/or views of the surrounding area. A scar made by humans as opposed to being naturally made by branches falling off etc. is distinguished by the following criteria: symmetry and rounded ends, scar does not extend to the ground, some regrowth has occurred around the edges of the scar, and no holes or knots are present in the heartwood. Silcrete: A sedimentary rock that is ‘formed through the impregnation of a sedimentary layer with silica of quartz grains in a matrix of either amorphous or fine-grained Silica’ (Holdaway & Stern 2004:24). Sondage: A small test excavation or test pit to examine the stratigraphy of a site; a deeper investigation of a small part of a larger trench. Stratigraphy: Layering.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 80 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Stone artefact: A piece of stone that has been formed by Aboriginal people to be used as a tool or is a by- product of Aboriginal stone tool manufacturing activities. Stone artefacts can be flaked such as points and scrapers or ground such as axes and grinding stones. Scraper: A tool used for scraping. A flake with one or more margins of continuous retouch. Thumbnail scraper: A small flake with a convex scraper edge, shaped like a thumbnail and located opposite the flake’s platform. Raw material: Organic or inorganic matter that has not been processed by people. Use-wear: Tiny flakes or chips that have been broken off the edges of a stone artefact during use.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 81 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Appendix 4: Relevant Planning Schemes
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 82 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 83 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 84 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 85 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 86 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 87 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 88 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 89 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 90 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 91 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 92 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 93 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 94 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020
Cultural Heritage Management Plan 17142: 119 Bridge Road, Bushfield, Victoria. Page 95 © U. C. A. Pty Ltd 2020